home

Obama Camp Resisting Revotes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Commenter Coral Gables points me to this very revealing story that demonstrates clearly that the Obama Camp is ratcheting up its campaign against revotes in Florida and Michigan:

"The Democratic Party is going to run a mail-in election and they're going to police it and they're going to - I mean, I think it's a nightmare," senior Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said Monday on MSNBC. . . . [S]tate party staffers are pushing ahead with a $10-million plan that could be submitted to the Democratic National Committee as early as this week.

. . . Growing skepticism from the Obama campaign and from key supporters of the Illinois senator. . . . "Does anyone really believe we're going to get this right? And does anyone really want another screwed up election in Florida?," asked Tallahassee City Commissioner Allan Katz, a DNC member and top Obama supporter.

Who is afraid of the Big Bad Revote? Barack Obama is. And it can not be denied anymore.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 19 | Boehlert On Tweety And Hillary's 60 Minutes Moment >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Obama Camp Resisting Revotes | 210 comments (210 topical)
    That's too rich-- and very Rovian, (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    actually. They are actively trying to thwart Democracy, while saying they only want to protect it.

    Yes, they are "protecting" the (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    "integrity" of the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI voters.

    This is stupid from the Obama perspective.  He's already lost those states once. It's not going to be a surprise if he loses them again. Yeah, the delegates will count, but those delegates alone will not put Clinton in front. If he thinks he's the frontrunner, he should act like the frontrunner and say that nothing that happens in FLA or MI is going to change things.

    Parent

    Depending on how the races break ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    I think it could put her in front, or within a handful of delegates.

     

    Parent

    You believe she will gain (none / 0) (#119)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    100 or more delegates out of the approx 370?

    Parent
    I thought the estimates of ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    what she would net from the current results was 105, and that's giving Obama delegates for the uncommitted votes.

    IMHO, the revotes aren't going to go that differently.

    Parent

    If you count the popular votes she got (none / 0) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    in FLA and MI, she is about tied with Obama. (Of course, most people don't count those votes.) But I am not sure the delegates she'd have if those votes counted would have her even with Obama.

    However, if you couple the delegates from either the first vote, or the revote, with the delegates she is likely to win from PA, she would be tied or very close, I think.  And she would almost certainly have the popular vote.

    Parent

    risky strategy (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    I will watch with interest to see how it plays out.

    Not to (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    mention that they're acting as though it's already the preemptive narrative for the Campaign to claim voting was in disarray and Clinton stole it when she wins both.

    Well, no doubt they'll try to make it in (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    disarray, by whatever methods they can.

    Parent
    I'm going to re-iterate (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    Obama is hoping he can win this before they revote.

    Dean is helping him.

    Waiting for Pennsylvania? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    Nothing is going to happen before Pennsylvania to end this race.

    And believe you me, we will be hearing about Florida and Michigan EVERY DAY for the next 6 weeks.

    Parent

    It certainly doesn't look... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    ... like Pennsylvania is going to be driving a stake through the Clinton campaign, either.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    Tonight they will celebrate another Obama win.

    They won't be discussing Obama's reticence here.

    As narratives go, it's a sub-narrative, so I think we just disagree on the amount of coverage this is getting.

    Which is not to say you staying on it isn't appreciated.

    Parent

    Mississippi? It's not exactly HUGE. (none / 0) (#99)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I think you're underestimating people Edgar08.  After a while, even the least political among us start to see a pattern.  Besides, it might not be a blowout for Obama in Mississippi.  He isn't going to widen his lead by very much.  

    Parent
    It's not HUGE????? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    Why do you hate Mississippi, Goldberry?

    Parent
    about that "popular vote".... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    What about states that have primaries AND caucuses?
    Voters are counted twice?

    Parent
    I doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    Dean is helping him.

    Dean has his own fight, which is to ensure that the states that challenged the DNC are seen to be forced into compliance.  Once that's taken care of, it's in his interest to have the most robust possible competition (in the sense of bringing out the most voters) as possible.

    Everything Dean's done seems to fit with this, the simplest version of what his interests are.

    I doubt there's much love lost between Dean and the Obama team, which includes many of the people who knee capped him in 2004.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#60)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has more former Clinton aides and campaigner's than Dean's people.

    Parent
    I beg your pardon? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
    Not sure what you mean.

    It's true Obama has a lot of former Clinton people, but he also has the communications guy who morphed Dean into Osama bin Laden in 2004.

    Parent

    I never kneecapped him (none / 0) (#113)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    I was a Clarkie.  I just never liked Dean much because he struck me as the kind of guy who likes to dabble in stuff and come up with nifty ideas but has no real idea about how to carry it out.  THAT'S what I didn't like about Dean.  It wasn't his scream or anything else about him.  Some of us paid attention to what he said and how he went about running his campaign and simply said, "No, thanks" based entirely on our own criteria. It wasn't personal.
    I wish you former Deaniacs would get over this "He could have been a contender, He could have BEEN somebody!" schtick.  He wasn't as great as you thought and the current situation is proving it. I am SOOO glad he wasn't the nominee if this is what he was capable of doing to just the party.  

    Parent
    Whoa, Nelly. (none / 0) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    I'm referring specifically to campaign operatives who did the dirty on Dean, not to general Obama supporters (who, I would guess, tend include a larger than statistically expected number of Dean fans).

    As for Dean, he certainly wasn't as good as people thought by the only measure that really matters -- getting elected.  I tend to agree with your assessment, but I'd also say that he was clearly lacking the ambition and ego that everyone decries in the current pair of candidates but which is a prerequisite to engaging in politics on this level.

    Parent

    I'm just noting that the roolz (none / 0) (#183)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    Including the enforcement thereof.

    Have always broke in Obama's favor.


    Parent

    One argument Obama is sure to lose (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    To refuse the revotes is basically turning away from their "different kind of politics" campaign line; and reinforces their "wink/nod/wink mode just like in Nafta and the Bower statement on hiws actual foreign policy as opposed to the one crafted in the primaries.

    It conveys the impression that they are actually afraid of the impact of the two revotes; that in the final analysis, he is just an ordinary politician;  This is a lose/lose situation for him.

    Parent

    Seems (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    like they are sowing seeds of doubt and trying to cast it in disarray before it even happens.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST


    Parent
    selling the majority of Americans (none / 0) (#116)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    on the idea that elections are rigged or faulty is an incredibly difficult task.  If Americans were truly worried about election fraud, or saw it as a serious issue, then we would have a better election process.  Has anyone noticed how difficult it is to vote?  The long lines, standing outside in the rain (or tornadoes), the mix-ups in polling places, the challenged ballots...and that's not even including the hacked Diebold machines, which make the news occasionally, but never inspire the sort of outrage that would get the process changed.  Even the supreme court handing Bush the presidency wasn't a huge enough issue to cause rioting in the streets.

    All this to say that Obama's spin on this, that it would be a nightmare, that we shouldn't do it, etc, is not going to play well.

    Parent

    We have too much stuff to riot (none / 0) (#186)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    That's the marvel of our "system".  It keeps people materially satisfied or striving, and relegates politics (as the right has successfully) to being the evil necessity that stands between us and our trinkets and gadgets and things.  It's insidious in a very keen way.

    Parent
    It's amusing (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    to watch people who adore all those f'ed up caucus results suddenly get the vapors at the thought that MI and FL might do something unorthodox with their primary.  "oh no, a firehouse primary is only open for a few hours! we can't possibly have a system that makes it hard for some people to vote!"

    That is why a mail-in (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    is the only viable alternative -- which the alternative they fear the most.

    Parent
    Lawsuit? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Do I smell a whiff of a lawsuit in the air to challenge the results?

    I live in CA.  I do not like having the concept of a mail-in challenged.  We are proud of the convenience and inclusiveness of our mail-in option.  No lines, no parking problems, convenience in pick up and drop off.  The only issue that is addressed in CA is having a signature on file to compare to.  If you are registered Dem, you get a Dem ballot.  If you are registered Rep, you get a Rep ballot.  This stuff is too obvious and yet another thing that is pissing me off.

    Just To Throw In My Two Cents (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    I live in Texas. Can't vote by mail-in (absentee) unless you can prove you're going to be out of the city on election day, or can prove that you're physically disable to be there. Otherwise you have to either lie, or, vote in person!!!
    Just thought I'd mention it.

    Parent
    There's something funny about his campaign (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    What's his plan for those two states?  I think he's looking worse everyday that he doesn't speak for himself.  He should never have postponed this issue until now.

    Just as Hillary HAS to win All of Ohio, Texas & Pennsylvania (and it's looking like she will)

    I think Obama HAS to win something out of PA, MI or FL.  And that's looking unlikely.

    I don't believe in spreadsheet predictions for elections.  I think that once the tide turns, everyone moves in the same direction.

    I know that on paper he looks like his campaign is as strong as ever.  But, I think he's peaked.  How does he turn the tide at this point?

    Not by dragging his heels on THIS.  He needs those states as much as Hillary.  Doesn't he?

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Katiebird, you nailed it.  Calling it momentum would be a mistake but I do think there is a change of mental attitude that favors Clinton solidly from here on out and for precisely the reasons you stated.  He can't and won't win the big/swing states.  He wins by caucus and that tends to suppress people, specifically working voters who might otherwise support Clinton.  
    Obama is suffering more from the long drawn out primary season because it gives voters time to see very clearly what his strategy is.  He is going for low-hanging fruit in conservative states and courting the AA vote.  He wins by excluding people.    He wins by flooding the caucuses with young people who won't stick around and are unlikely to vote for the rest of the Dems.  He is a movement and a personality.  And it becomes clearer everyday.  

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    The fact that he does better in caucuses would lead me to question (if I was an SD) his viability in the GE, since there are no caucuses in the GE - it's straight up or down.

    Parent
    My perception of caucuses now... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    ..having never participated in one, is that you have to be aggressive. And that there will be people there who will try to persuade you to vote their way.  As that is a position that I don't willingly like to place myself in, I think I wouldn't like them. I like to make up my mind before I go to the polling place. And maybe my perception of them is all effed up, but that's the impression that I'm left with after this crazy campaign season.

    Parent
    Having never really focused on them before (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    (even though I have been voting in presidential elections since 1976), what astounds me about caucuses is how they (1) exclude people who can't attend the caucuses at the specified time; (2) encourage, rather than discourage, last minute attempts to influence a person's vote by candidate surrogates; (3)award delegates in a manner disproportionate to the number of people living in the relevant district, or the number of votes cast in the caucuses.

    Somehow I thought of them as friendly little get togethers in small towns where punch and cookies were served and everyone got a chance to talk.

    Now, I think we should abolish them. Seriously.  They really don't accurately reflect the level or depth of popular support a candidate would have in the state in a regular primary or the GE.

    Parent

    Senior Citizens (none / 0) (#57)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    Clinton leads among senior citizens in just about every state. The blow back on the FL and MI revote hurts both candidates. Clinton is afraid not to have the revotes because she desperately needs the votes in her second place position. Obama will play by the rules and go along but his campaign wishes the issue would go away.

    Parent
    fwiw - a revote is playing by the rules (none / 0) (#93)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    The DNC rule book has rules to modify rules so that every rule can be re-ruled by another rule.

    Parent
    If I may speak. . . (none / 0) (#102)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    for 1jane, I took her comment to mean that Obama will ultimately accept the re-vote not that he will attempt to permanently ban Florida.

    Parent
    What I don't understand (none / 0) (#107)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    are his options....

    What IS his first choice?  

     1. Does he want a convention where the seats for MI & FL are empty?

     2. Does he want FL & MI at the convention?

    I can't tell.

    IF he wants them there, why doesn't he jump in (as BTD says below) with some enthusiasm?

    I don't think he's wanting the issue to go away -- that's just childish.  The issue isn't going away.


    Parent

    see (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by joei on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    that's were the genius plan implemented by his surrogates kicks inn -- split 50/50 and seat them

    Parent
    Obama could be hurting himself (none / 0) (#157)
    by Curtis93433 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    This is why he is delaying the end result.  He is hoping this ends up in the Credential Committee, where as they will split the delegates evenly 50-50.  Supposedly he has the votes in this Committee and the States would need to do something before it goes to this Committe for a vote.  The funny thing is that Obama is really hurting himself with these States and it appears he does not want their vote to count.  He could potentially have a serious backlash in a revote.  The perception does not look good.

    Parent
    Is there any evidence mail-in votes (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    are unreliable? I realize this is the talking point du jour from Obama Central, but I personally have never heard of a  problem with mail-ins before.

    Washington State (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    In Washington state, the "absentee voter" policy is so liberal that all you have to say is "I want to become a permanent 'absentee' voter" and they start sending you a ballot every election.  You don't have to be traveling or anything.

    The absentee process is so successful that the plan is to switch Washington to an entirely vote by mail system.

    Chain of custody isn't really a problem.  You place your ballot in an anonymous envelope and place that envelope in an envelope with your name, the date and your signature on it.

    The poll worker opens your signed envelope, verifies your signature, and checks off that you've sent in your ballot and places your "anonymous" envelope in a bin to be later opened and counted.

    It's really a simple process, and allows the voter the time and space to make informed decisions.  There's no more fraud potential than in any other election.

    I don't know how it would disenfranchise poorer citizens.  They can vote without worrying about work hours.  If the issue is the 39 cent stamp, the Democrats can prepay the postage....

    IMHO, It's a great way to go.

    Parent

    Yepper (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    It totally is. Florida's system is the same way with the added part that you can fax your paperwork to the board of elections if you waive the right to a secret ballot.

    It worked out good for me this time because my ballot got here with only a day or two before it had to be back. so I just signed it the extra time, to waive my right to a secret ballot, and faxed it in.

    Parent

    Paranoia now being part of my thought (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    process, I have to wonder how many Obama "organizers" will be "helping" people with their mail-in votes in a way they could not help at precincts...

    Parent
    I don't think it would be worse (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    than the thuggery at the caucuses.

    Parent
    This has always (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    been one of my concerns with mail-in elections.  Imagine your spouse insisting on "helping" you fill out your ballot, unlike a voting booth where nobody knows what you do.  Imagine an evangelical church asking that everyone bring in their ballots next Sunday so we can all fill them out together.

    But it does work well in Oregon, apparently, so maybe these concerns are misplaced.

    Parent

    illegal (none / 0) (#184)
    by Nasarius on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the latter example at least is illegal. Yes, this sort of thing can happen, and you can't prevent the rare isolated incidents of intimidation. But try to crank it up to any significant scale, and you get in Very Big Trouble as one of the voters you're trying to intimidate reports you to the authorities.

    Parent
    Clinton will too (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    But the signature is the signature. And that expresses the will of the voter.

    Parent
    Alice Palmer (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    Doesn't Obama have some staffers who are very good at challenging signatures?

    Parent
    1996 revisited midnight lawyers (none / 0) (#131)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    But he is for enfranchising voters he wouldn't do that.

    Parent
    Ditto (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    I know.  It is the same process here.  There are so many exceptions to requirements, a person actually registered their dog to vote.  I don't think access to ballots is the issue.  I think it is that they are not literally going to be 'mailed in' in this case.  My understanding is there will be drop off sites and there will be 6 to 8 hours to drop off.

    Parent
    You realize (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    that she put her phone bill in the dog's name so that she could register him.  It wasn't as easy as some attempted to make us believe.  It took her some time and effort to do it, not something that you could probably do before a special election.

    Link

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    That's true.  I forgot that part.  I just remember, it took awhile to figure it out.  I noted that it is just a matter of bringing in a current bill or that there are forms one can sign declaring residency.  The threshold is very low.

    Parent
    In fact I thought that perhaps they might be... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    ...and many posters from states that have mail in elections assured me that they are really quite effective.

    Parent
    In 2000, the FL military mail-in vote (none / 0) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    had numerous problems

    Parent
    Military ballots (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    The Florida military mail in had no more issues than any other state. The question was should the military abide by the same time frame as other voters in having their ballots arrive. The only reason it was mentioned in Florida was because Florida was close.

    Parent
    was it just the military's or all (none / 0) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    absentee votes.

    Parent
    a negative about the mail in vote (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    is that Florida has never done it - that I'm aware of.
    And we know the history on Florida counting votes...

    Parent
    Florida Republican Gov counting votes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    This would be the Democratic Party.  We have a lot of absentee votes here that are mailed in so it would just be a larger process.

    Are you casting doubt on the honesty of the Florida Democrats?

    Parent

    What's absurd about the argument from (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    the Obama campaign, and which will make it transparent to the public that they have absolutely no interest in seeing democracy win, is the simple fact that the only alternative they leave open is the complete disenfranchisement of every last voter in FL and MI. How do you compare that result with the possibility that a small number of voters in FL and MI might be disenfranchised?

    They are never going to win this argument, however they try. They will only make themselves look like dishonest fools in the process.

    Which would be a good thing, from my point of view.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    "we can't risk another screwed-up election, so let's have no election at all!"

    Parent
    Nice way to sum it up (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep pretty much. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    I don't see how disenfranchisement is a new kind of politics. The Obama campaign is setting themselves up to be like Kathrine Harris or Ken Blackwell as symbols of voter supression.

    Parent
    What is disturbing (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    To me is to see a democrat use arguments that republicans tend to use to reduce turnout. Mail-in voting in other states always tend to show higher turnout, more participation, and i have not seen any stories of fraud better or worse than a walk in election.

    I understand each side has their own political motives on this, but to use a bs argument about fraud, chain of custody, problems, when it may actually cause more people to vote is disturbing.

    When did we turn into republicans?

    Yeah, like caucuses are a piece of cake (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    No confusion and bad management there.  Obama is rapidly losing credibility and time is running out.  

    A passive-aggressive strategy (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    Say that you will go along with whatever the DNC decides, but criticize every single proposal as unworkable, disenfranchising, fraudulent, too expensive, etc.

    Am I shocked that the Obama campaign is behaving this way? No, it's exactly what they've been doing on this issue all along.

    "I will support whatever the DNC. . . (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    decides to do.  No matter how stupid it is.  No matter how heinous, how terrible.  No matter how many puppies have to die I will support the DNC.

    Because that's the kind of Democrat I am".

    Parent

    I would add taht (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    this strategy is remarkably similar, if not identical, to the classic game Why Don't You/Yes But.

    Parent
    Warren, you are a godsend (none / 0) (#132)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    Thanks for that Link. I've been thinking there HAD to be a name for that kind of behaviour.

    Danke.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    I think it is a very bad strategy.

    This is going to happen. Why not pretend you are THRILLED about it?

    Parent

    acting "thrilled" is (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by OldCoastie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    exactly what he should do, but I think Obama tends towards petulant... it's not in him to act thrilled...

    he's making a big mistake here... and if gets the nomination after continuing the petulant act, I think he has no chance of picking up MI or FL in the general...

    Parent

    Tarnishing Obama's image as (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    the so-talented politican.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#105)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    it's a bad strategy too. Where did I say I thought it was a good one? Thrilled by it? huh?

    Parent
    Oh never mind (none / 0) (#106)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    I get it. Obama should pretend he's thrilled by it. I agree.

    Parent
    Obama should be for a revote (none / 0) (#137)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    Yes, Obama should say he is 100% behind letting Florida and Michigan revote and have their votes counted. I took this stance a week ago and am still waiting for him to come out and say it.

    He needs to win people over to his side in Florida and Michigan. By being in the forefront of the argument to let every vote count he would have started his campaign in both these states on a positive note.

    Still waiting.....

    Parent

    How much (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    would a paper primary cost?  

    Have all 6500 polling places open 7 a.m to 7 p.m. but without the voting machines and give everyone a "mail-in" ballot to fill-in and deposit immediately.

    Surfing (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    OK, I was surfing around and found a ditty over at MYDD.  It appears Levin has changed....

    From the Detroit Free Press  Levin went from 'financial and logistical hurdles' to...

    A day after Levin mentioned during a TV interview that the mail-in option might be the best way to hold a second primary, the senator acknowledged that his position on a do-over primary had changed because "there may be agreement among the candidates" that there should be a do-over

    The media completely ignored the (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ivs814 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    FL & MI vote when it happened and then completely discounted the results.  This in turn fueled the distorted perception that Obama was in the lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates creating a crest of momentum that came crashing down on the reality that Hillary had indeed kicked his butt in both FL & MI and it conveniently didn't count.  What is unfair is that by completely ignoring FL & MI, Obama's imaginery lead  resulted in weeks and weeks of his supporters trumpeting his inevitability and crying for Hillary to drop out.  

    well, there's a lot of potential... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    ...for mischief in a mail-in primary.  It has the potential to disenfranchise a large number of voters, particularly those from demographics more likely to support Obama.  Are independents and republicans who voted in Michigan last time around eligible this time around?  

    I think, if there is resistance, one additional reason may be how the media plays it--"this is a huge triumph for Clinton" (when in fact the bigger win for her would have been getting them seated with the existing delegate mix, not her facing two expensive additional contests in June, where she faces a real chance of losing one of them).

    I'm sure Obama will be asked directly about the re-votes in the next couple days, and pressed on the issue no later than next week.  I still think this is mainly stalling, in order to get the best possible deal and blunt the positive media spin for Clinton.

    I am curious (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    how a mail-in primary disenfranchises people.  Are there fewer mailboxes in some areas?

    A mail-in primary in FL would almost certainly be to Clinton's disadvantage because of all the snowbirds who may have voted in FL in January, but will be back home by the time the re-vote takes place.  Ballots don't get forwarded along with the rest of your mail.

    Parent

    Come on.. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    That's just silly. Florida has had a mail-in portion to their primaries for a very long time. There is an enormous amount of absentee voters in Florida. I myself am an absentee FLorida voter. I called my state arty last night and was told that my ballot would be forwarded to me in the event this gets done, and they expect it to.

    I will be able to either mail it in, fax it or e-vote, same as any other primary for which I vote absentee. Florida has no intention of leaving out their residents who are not living in the state at this time.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    I was told that it is illegal to forward a mail-in ballot, unlike an absentee ballot.  I guess I should refrain from passing myself off as an expert on Florida law, since it was someone else's comment.

    If the snowbirds are able to vote in Florida without a problem, then a key factor for Obama is whether the re-votes will take place before the end of the school year, when many students return to their homes out of state.

    Parent

    He better get them to do it soon (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    because a lot of the places he won like Alachua and Leon Co. are college areas UF and FSU and FAMU.

    Parent
    vote caging - Florida 2004 (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    Military ballots were mailed to soldiers' homes! and they never got the ballots.


    Parent
    A mail-in is clearly superior (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    to either a caucus or "firehouse" rules, since anything that requires more than a few minutes travel for senior citizens and poorer urban dwellers would be disenfranchising.

    Perhaps Obama is still hoping for caucuses, but that's just not going to happen.

    Parent

    The Homeless Vote? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    that's what I wanted to know.  How does it disenfranchise anyone other than the way FL/MI voters have already been disenfranchised?  

    Parent
    What demographics? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    Other than the AA vote you may be referring to, we've been told time and again highly educated, high earning white voters are his demographic. So how exactly, are they dis-enfranchised in this process? Can they only work email?

    Parent
    Errr. . .what? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Errr. . .what? (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    well, there's a lot of potential for mischief in a mail-in primary.  It has the potential to disenfranchise a large number of voters, particularly those from demographics more likely to support Obama.

    Come again?  I can't see how a mail-in disenfranchises anyone.  I can see how there might be mischief caused by too many votes, not the other way around.

    Are independents and republicans who voted in Michigan last time around eligible this time around?

    Good question.  I presume that they would be if they voted in the Democratic primary last time, but not if they voted in the Republican one.

    PS: Sorry for previous comment misfire.

    Parent

    Oregon (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    The one state that has a vote by mail system has an 82% turnout in general elections.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    Have this issue get resolved in the Media after a few more wins in bright red states.


    Parent
    Pffft (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    Please. Not here. Spin it somewhere else Mike.

    Parent
    Nevertheless (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    There is NO assurance that the mail-in votes will have proper chain of custody or that the counts will be accurate.  This is true all over the country, more in some states than others.  Of course, to argue against the Florida vote and not the other states' votes is very telling.  Florida doesn't even make the worst states list from Black Box Voting.

    Mail in is a bad idea (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    Full Primary.

    Parent
    Money (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    5 to 8 million for mail-in.  20 million for primary.

    Parent
    so? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    Certify the original results then if you're worried about money.


    Parent
    Re-vote process (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    I'm just looking at the ability and cost of a re-vote.  Whether to have a re-vote or use current number is a different issue.  

    Parent
    If you're looking at cost (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    I'm just saying one option is free.


    Parent
    Money is not the problem (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by themomcat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    Corzine, Rendell and Carville have all said they would raise the money on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign only needs to put it s money into the pot and Voila! a rerun.

    Parent
    California (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    You have multiple persons transporting the ballots.  You can drop them directly at the elections board or a team transports them.  Dems/Reps/Indie in the same vehicle.  The people want to vote.. I don't think they will have any problem getting volunteers.  Again, we do this in CA.  It may take us a little longer to count our ballots, but I have never heard of mass amounts of fraud here.

    Parent
    So, must we then put all absentee votes (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    in doubt?  They are mail-in after all.

    There is NO assurance that the mail-in votes will have proper chain of custody or that the counts will be accurate



    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    This link addresses many of the potential problems associated with mail-in voting.  They are serious, as are all issues that impinge upon our right to vote.

    Some of issues from the linked post are:

    Not enough postage, not clearly indicated
    Incorrect ballot inserts
    Signature not accepted
    Missing ballots (not delivered correctly perhaps)
    Chain of custody (possibility of being able to stuff the ballot box)
    Extra ballots printed (where are they and what happens to them?)
    Counted electronically (a HOST of problems associated with that)
    Huge cost of recount if necessary


    Parent

    Even if you acknowledge (none / 0) (#200)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    these as problems, what is the alternative?

    The FLA primary in January had all the indicia of fairness: record turnout, all candidates on the ballot, and all candidates on an equal footing vis a vis the prohibition on in-state campaigning.  Would you rather accept the results of the FLA January primary?  I would, but I know that, despite the record turnout, there may be some voters who stayed home because they didn't think their votes would count. And I accept that the MI primary results don't even have the virtue of having had all candidates on the ballot.

    Unless someone figures out how to pay for a full, complete re-do of the MI and FLA primaries, there are only two alternatives: mail-in voting, which gives everyone the chance to vote in a situation where the votes will be counted; or permanently disenfranchising the voters. The latter is untenable, and will only hurt Obama if he is perceived as having prevented a mail-in re-vote.

    Parent

    People (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    mail in absentee votes all the time.


    Parent
    Mail in votes disenfranchise poor voters .... (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    and would be bogus.

    So said Wasserman-Schultz on MSNBC yesterday.  I think she's a Clinton supporter, too.  I'm looking for link.

    Any detail? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    Did she describe the disenfranchisement?  Is it because the drop off hours would be typical to a caucus process and would be less than the hours a primary would be open?  Normally you have days to drop off a mail in ballot.  It would be great if they could allow a couple of days for drop off rather than just hours.

    Parent
    Speaking as (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    Someone who has tried to register people for absentee ballots--
    The poor/AA are much more suspicious of mail in ballots than are others.  They think that it signs them up for things/gives the government the ability to track them (somehow)/commits them to ONLY being able to vote by mail in the future...you have to realize that this is the group republican strategists usually try to target and cheat.  There were stories in 2004 of repubs going into AA areas of Iowa and providing them with fake or incomplete absentee ballots.
    People KNOW they can go down to their polling place and vote.  They are a little more suspicious of mail-in ballots.
    We need to revote the primary.

    Parent
    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    That certainly makes sense to me, and it would tend to work to the detriment of Democrats in a GE.  In the context of this primary, I'm really not sure who it would favor since the exit polls suggest Clinton does very well among lower-income voters.  In fact, in the first Florida primary the "under $15,000" category was by far Obama's weakest.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#118)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    That's true...Hillary does do better among low income dems, but to have a fair result I think we need to make sure Obama's voters aren't turned off by the process.  And the most paranoid about mail-in voting BY FAR are poor AA's.  We do NOT want Al Sharpton on the radio the day after raving about stolen votes.
    I like Carville's 15mil offer.  I think Obama should raise money as well, though if he drags his feet a little I won't blame him too much.  We are, after all, asking him to contribute to a process (FLA primary revote) that would almost certainly result in a loss.

    Parent
    you said it right the poor and the AA voters (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    are suspicious.  White or black you will always find a group of people who just don't like to be found specially out here in the swamps.  But that is an across the board problem here in North Fl.
    Don't know much about MI

    Parent
    Claw (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    you raise a good point about mistrust of govt in the aa community.  We have to keep in mind that rumors quickly become concrete evidence in some parts.  I wonder if this is what Obama means when he uses his coded "bamboozled" rhetoric, that he is setting up the rumor that if Clinton wins, it will be by deceptive means.

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#55)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    I guess the interview was on Fox News, which baffles me because I never watch Fox News.  I wonder how it is that I saw this.

    Parent
    Because I blogged about it (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    Being the fair blogger that I am.

    Parent
    Do you actually have to drop them off? (none / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    What happens if you really are out of state for the summer months?

    My parents live down there and are registered Dems. But when Dad's got the summer off from teaching, they do travel...here then various and sundry parts of NY including a week to visit the grandkids up near Syracuse.

    They are literally all over the place...and they voted this past Jan.

    Parent

    Wasserman Schultz (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    having so much experience with mail in voting.

    She did say it and she is a Clinton supporter.

    LEt's give her credit for honesty. But that does not make her right.

    Parent

    How do mail-in (none / 0) (#49)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    disenfranchise poor voters? I would think that caucuses or firehouse votes would disenfranchising, but not mail-ins.

    Parent
    Poorer people (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    are somewhat less likely to have a fixed address, so it's harder to mail the ballots to them.

    Parent
    These are all arguments at the margins (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    EVERY system has its flaws.

    But the BIGGEST FLAW is to have NO VOTES in Florida or Michigan.

    And the bottom line is Obama wants to disenfranchise ALL Floridians and Michiganders.

    Parent

    Yes of course this is correct (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    All systems are flawed.  Since some kind of revote is almost inevitable, it seems like his strtegy is to cast doubt on the outcome.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    They don't live someplace where there's a mailbox?


    Parent
    Ballots have to be printed in advance (none / 0) (#155)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    You're talking about printing millions of ballots, so they have to be printed in advance. Addresses may be outdated more quickly for people who move more often.

    This is why voter caging works.

    Parent

    She said much the same on Fox News Sunday. (none / 0) (#166)
    by tbetz on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    According to Smashed Frog.  WHen I get home I'll go to the audio podcast (I download it every week, but rarely listen to it) and see if I can find it.

    And yes, she is a strong Clinton partisan.

    Parent

    Aren't absentee votes mail in votes? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    This would just be a larger process.

    Probably safe to assume Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    campaign will not encourage any contributions to defray the cost of re-do in MI and FL.  So, after those re-does happen, will Obama claim HRC supporters "bought" the votes?  

    I've already heard this (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    Some Obama surrogate was complaining yesterday about the Corzine-Rendell effort to raise money for the re-votes because Corzine and Rendell are Clinton supporters, and therefore somehow the money they raise will result in a process that is skewed towards Clinton.

    I don't understand the basis of this argument, but it is already in circulation.

    Parent

    If, as I've read, caucuses are (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    funded by the state party, seems like fat cats must be funding caucuses.  

    Parent
    I don't think there is anything BUT (none / 0) (#126)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    innuendo.

    The party would actually conduct the primary, count the votes, etc. I don't see how the source of funds would have any impact on the legitimacy/reliability of the vote.

    Parent

    We could pass the hat in NJ (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    And probably take up a collection in NY, CA, OH, AZ and other states she's won.  Then it would be a gift from voters to voters.  
    Of course, none of this would be necessary if Obama just waived the RULZ and sat the FL delegation as it is.  He's not going to win Florida anyway and he'll save himself the humiliation and us the money.  

    Parent
    Considering the Florida dem party (none / 0) (#59)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    appears to be composed of idiots who brought us George W. Bush and this, there's merit to Katz's concern.

    I am shocked by your comment (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    Who would have expected you to argue against a revote? Snort.

    Parent
    I've previously said that (none / 0) (#82)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    revotes are fine.  Sorry if that's inconsistent with your ad hominem.

    Parent
    So why against THIS revote? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    Sorry if that is against the logic of your comments in this thread.

    Parent
    I never said I was (none / 0) (#130)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    I just pointed out that Florida is run by morons.  I'm resigned to the fact that political reality forces the rest of us to indulge their idiocy.

    Parent
    Who is afraid of the Big Bad Revote? (none / 0) (#63)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    Some Clinton supporters:

    - Divisions among Clinton supporters about whether a new election, mail or otherwise, makes sense. In Florida, Sen. Bill Nelson is touting a vote-by-mail election, while U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trashing the idea.

    This is very much in flux, with serious logistical challenges as well as political posturing, and neither campaign has taken a clear position on exactly what should be done.

    At the end of the day, if a revote is possible, it's going to happen and both campaigns are going to participate.

    Oh stop it (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    Wasserman Schultz was clearly speaking for herself, not the Clinton campaign.

    Every single Clinton surrogate is arguing for revotes now.

    I see you are losing you reasonable luster on this.

    You must be getting worried for Obama.


    Parent

    The Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#89)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    got its message together like two days ago.

    Obama's has said he will accept revotes and is not backtracking on this.

    Part of the reason he's being cautious is that Clinton supporters control the Democratic establishment in both states and he wants to make sure any revotes are done right. We have seen what happens when partisans control the elections in places like . . . oh, Florida.

    And sure, I am worried for Obama. It's a close race, and could be decided by backroom deals  -- which is Clinton's turf.

    Parent

    He is utterly backtracking on this (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    more so every day.

    That is the point of this post.


    Parent

    We'll see (none / 0) (#143)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    I think he's against mail-in primaries because he thinks they favor Clinton.  

    Parent
    I am worried because obama has won (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    primarily with caucuses in red states.  Doesn't that worry you? Both TX and WA state have demonstrated the inequality of votes between the caucus and primary vote.  This doesn't seem to concern the Obama folks at all.

    Parent
    It would worry me more if it were true (none / 0) (#142)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    In fact, Obama has more primary votes and has won lots of blue and swing states.

    However, if he loses PA and revotes in MI and FL, this will become a valid concern.

    Parent

    How many blue states has he won? (none / 0) (#187)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    And how many closed primaries has he won?

    Parent
    Actually, either one is a win for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    I guess it just depends on whether you think it is OK to make Floridians aware of the $18M they spent on the first primary that now is worth diddly-squat.  That's a lot of money and if you are the thrifty kind, you probably don't want your backers throwing more of it into a redo that won't change the final outcome if the money could be put to better uses.  

    Parent
    Every Obama supporter speaks for the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    But Clinton supporters must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  The Clinton rules, you know.

    Parent
    This is absurd (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    You know that the Clinton mantra now is for revotes.

    You know it. You now that Wasserman Schultz was not speaking for the Clinton campaign.

    This is when some of you are just impossible to reason with.

    I dod not blame Obama for NOT wanting revotes on that I know they will hurt his chances. If there was a way to do it, to avoid it, then he is within his rights to try and stop it.

    But it is TOO LATE. Time to start dealing with the reality of this.

    Parent

    Where is Obama's campaign opposing revotes? (none / 0) (#104)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    They are expressing skepticism about a particular method -- mail-in primary -- not about the concept of a revote in general.  

    They have clearly  said they accept revotes in principle.

    Parent

    In principle (none / 0) (#128)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    but they are doing everything in their power to prevent it from happening in practice.

    Parent
    Just pointing out the confirmation bias (none / 0) (#136)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    Your opinion is that Obama must secretly oppose revotes.  So when a low-level Obama supporter questions the validity of a mail-in revote, it must be on behalf of the campaign.  But when a Clinton surrogate does it, she's off the reservation.

    Parent
    The way I read (none / 0) (#179)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    the piece, Wasserman-Schultz is opposed to a mail-in vote. Since there was no link I don't know what was in the rest of the story, I can only say that her opposition to a mail-in does not automatically mean opposition to a re-vote. They seem to be arguing about the process, not whether to have a revote.

    Parent
    As I remember it Wasserman-Schultz was (none / 0) (#146)
    by ivs814 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    concerned about validating the signatures.  If this revote is managed through the Florida Democratic Party as opposed to the state, they would not have access to a signature validation.  

    Parent
    Is there any reliable data on (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    how FI and MI voters will vote in the GE if FL and MI delegates are not seated at the convention, no matter how they are selected, i.e., initial primary results or re-voting?

    Anything along that line would be conjecture (none / 0) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    but there will be a lot of pissed off voters in these states.

    Parent
    SUSA had poll results (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    from New Yorkers w/i hours of Spitzer's press conference.  I guess the pollsters aren't quite as obsessed with MI/FL as BTD is.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    it's sort of hard to poll a hypothetical like that.

    Parent
    How difficult would it be to (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    contact a sample of likely voters and ask what they'll likely do in the GE if FL/MI delegates aren't seated at the convention?

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#149)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    good question.  Why hasn't someone funded a polling to take the temperature of FL and MI voters?

    Or, maybe someone has but they are not releasing the report because it doesn't help them.

    Parent

    Not hard (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    how accurate would the results be? not very.

    Imagine taking a poll of the blogosphere and asking how many people will sit out if their candidate isn't nominated.  Ask that question in the heat of a primary, and the numbers will always be far higher than what actually happens.

    Parent

    actually... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    there have been polls asking that very question, just not on the blogosphere.  I think that Clinton's folks were around 20% and Obama's were around 30 for not crossing over.

    I would find the link if not for my abhorrent laziness.

    Parent

    Not scientific (none / 0) (#110)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    But McCain won the 2000 primary here over GWB.  Now, you can say a lot of D's voted in the Republican primary and tried to shake things up, but he's still pretty popular here.

    Parent
    Speaking of Michigan... (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    ...sorry, the conversations are complete in my head.

    McCain is still very popular in Michigan and he won the 2000 primary over GWB.

    Parent

    If Florida and Michigan managed the FIRST Vote (none / 0) (#140)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    why not the revote?  As long as the taxpayers in those states are not made to fund the revote, let the state govts. handle the revote just like the do elections.  

    Call for Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#141)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    to oversee this reelection.

    That should shut Obama up.

    Nah, wouldn't work (none / 0) (#150)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    they'd just accuse him of favoring Hillary because he appointed her to that children's post during his presidency.

    Nothing is Sacred!

    Parent

    You miss the point... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    it would work because nearly all the Carter family are in the Obama camp and known to be...and Jimmy and his team have overseen and validated elections worldwide. The irony would be Hillary calling out the Obama camp's 'concerns' by calling for Carter!

    What Democrat would dare to question President Carter's integrity re an election?

    Perfect.

    Parent

    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#164)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    That would indeed be hilarious.

    But there is no underestimating the gymnastics that supporters can exhibit when faced with such a catch 22. I still imagine they'd find some way to slime him through surrogates. :-(

    Not that that would help Obama at all, but you know, his kids aren't necessarily the best chess players.

    Parent

    I can't imagine (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    how they could slime Carter on elections...and given the obvious PR value for Hillary, she could take on anyone who did!

    Yeaaaa!  Headlines!  Hillary defends Carter!

    Great subtext.

    And...gives Carter the chance to 'get even' with Ted Kennedy over an election challenge.  As in, what goes around, comes around.

    Works for me.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#178)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    Pres. Carter thinks our voting system is so messed up that he likely wouldn't certify it as fair. I heard him as much within the last two years on NPR, possibly on Terri Gross.

    Parent
    Yes...I agree....but (none / 0) (#196)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    not a problem in this case.

    We're talking only 2 states...

    AND...bring Carter in NOW to help design/validate the process FOR the DNC (and the candidates) and then oversee it to its 2-state conclusion.

    Not. That. Difficult.

    Parent

    2 MI revote process questions (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    1. Would those who voted in the R Primary be excluded? (Thinking of kos' Dems for Romney)

    2. Who'd be on the ballot? Gravel?


    I think the idea is... (none / 0) (#154)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    ... that anyone who didn't vote in the R primary could vote in the D primary.

    Parent
    one voters nightmare (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    is another voters daydream

    Voters who did not vote in Michigan and Florida (none / 0) (#148)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Does any one know how many people in Michigan and in Florida who did not vote  not because of apathy but  because they knew that that vote would not count in their state?

    Obama and his supporters are to Chicken to (none / 0) (#152)
    by DemBillC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    allow for a revote as they know they will get slaughtered what wih Edwards voters going to Hillary. The politics of Change? Sounds like the same old Rovian Bushies tactics of trying to steal the Florida vote. It will not be tolerated! Obama has no chance of winning ether in the general election if he tries to screw over FLA and Mich. now. Hillary should pounce on this as a sign of weakness from Obama. This proves he is a Chickenhawk.

    No need for names... (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    I think he should allow for a revote.  In fact, I think he will do better with a revote.  I can see why BTD think otherwise, but I will have to agree to disagree.  I would also be okay with seating Florida as is.  I am not sure what Obama personally thinks, I am not quite as ready as some to jump on the "he is afraid" wagon because some of his supporters question aspects of the revote, although I can also see that side of the argument.  I would personally prefer a full primary but I know that may not be logistically possible.  But I wouldn't call anyone chicken.  It's a little juvenile.  And I'm the "youth" voter.

    Parent
    How bout this: (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    No more calling names and no more comparing Obama to Bush or Rove.  I would also appreciate it if HRC would refrain from saying that she and John McCain have passed the commander in chief test but the jury's still out on Obama.  No more "vote for me but if not, vote republican."  I cannot remember the last time I heard something like that (if ever).
    I support Obama and fully support a revote in both states.  So I guess we're not ALL too chicken?

    Parent
    And how about (none / 0) (#175)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    No more misstating what was said and twisting for partisan purposes?

    Please show me where Hillary said "vote for me but if not, vote republican."

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#190)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    are unaware of her interview in which she said that she and McCain had passed the commander in chief test but the jury was still out on Obama?  You need links for that?  
    She basically said that there are 2 candidates in the race who have enough experience to be President.  1 is her, the other is McCain.  There's really no way to get around this quote.  It's a great commercial for Republicans and they're already rubbing their hands over it.  It won't even require editing.
    Regardless of how much she wants to win this nomination she has to stay within bounds and not endorse the republican candidate over Obama.  Because he MIGHT get the nomination.  If he does he'll have to face this over and over...in debates "Sen. Obama, even your challenger in the democratic primary intimated that you had not passed the commander in chief test but that your opponent, Sen. McCain had...how do you respond?"  And he'll definitely see it in commercials.  It was really a burn the village to save it move.  And I haven't seen anyone come up with a comparable statement from any campaign previous.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#197)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    John Kerry repeatedly refused to say whether Howard Dean was qualified to be President, and responded to questions (in language that mirrors Hillary's own rhetoric) simply by saying "That's for the American people to decide."

    When Dean said that Saddam's capture had not made America any safer, Kerry said: "For a major candidate not to understand that the capture of that man makes America safer, I think, shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of foreign policy and national security."

    Now, I realize the 2004 primary might have been too long ago for people to remember.  But the idea that Hillary's language is somehow without precedent is laughable.

    Parent

    What's laughable (none / 0) (#206)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    is your response.  Kerry may have refused to say whether Howard Dean was experienced enough.  Hillary said, essentially, that Obama was NOT.  She then pointed to another person who had the experience.  That person happens to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  I remember the 2004 election very well--I worked on Kerry's behalf--and at no time did he say "Well, GWB and I have proven we can lead, Dean hasn't."  
    If you're going to be condescending it's always best to have something to back it up.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#209)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    I guess if you're going to tease the implication that Obama isn't ready out of Hillary's comments, and refuse to tease any implication out of Kerry's comments, then yeah, they look different.

    Parent
    There's (none / 0) (#211)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    No teasing needed.  Hillary mentioned two candidates who were ready: herself and McCain.  I do not recall any other dem doing the same.

    Parent
    I am very aware of that (none / 0) (#205)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    I am questioning your veracity. You are posting your interpretation of what was said as what was said. So I'll ask again: show me where she said "vote for me, or vote for a republican."

    No offense, not interested in your interpretation. As they use to say "just the facts."

    Parent

    fine, please email the obama campaign (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    about their innuedno then. you know the race tactics that happened in sc and are now starting up in mississippi. fair is fair, right!

    Parent
    my god (none / 0) (#195)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    Bill Clinton opened the race can of worms in SC with his Jesse Jackson comments.  I don't believe they were racist but they were at very best bone-headed.  It wasn't up to Obama to fix Clinton's mess.
    And this is not a playground fight, it's an election.  Fair is fair?  So if HRC says something terrible about Obama it's fine for him to say something terrible about her?  No, we should try to hold our leaders to a higher standard.


    Parent
    Obama should already have demanded that a revote (none / 0) (#167)
    by DemBillC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    happen. That is why I am calling him Chicken.

    Parent
    New One (none / 0) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Here's a new one.... someone from the DNC is on right now.  She states the DNC offered Florida the money for a mail-in way back when.  Now, they want to use their resources to focus on McCain.  I know they aren't paying for it.  They have made that very clear.  I just thought it was interesting they offered the money when the battle over moving the vote up began.

    Florida state party (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    wanted the DNC to pick up the cost of a full primary at a later date. The DNC balked at this.

    The DNC is being pennywise and pound foolish if they think it is more important to save money to fight McCain in the general than to make Florida Democrats feel invested in the Democratic candidates. Because if they don't, some significant portion of them will either vote for McCain, or stay home.

    Parent

    Well it should be a primary (none / 0) (#159)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    There is issues for a state not acustomed to a mail in system to just throw this together in a couple months. I was listening to Bill Press this morning and heard it took like 4 years for Oregon to put their whole mail in the system together, and that's a far smaller state than Florida. A mail in vote is certainly better than a caucus, but I think we still need to try to get a primary in both MI and FL. Let the DNC, state parties, and the Obama and Clinton campaigns split the cost.

    Yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    Total agreement.

    Parent
    If they can manage absentee ballots (none / 0) (#176)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    I fail to see why they cannot handle a mail-in primary.

    Parent
    Since there is no possibility (none / 0) (#168)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    of a fair solution to this mess (fair to voters, fair to the future primary process, and fair to both candidates), the best thing to do is look at the larger goals involved and try to find a solution that best meets them without being unduly unfair to any of the interested parties.

    I think those goals are:

    • unify the party in the fight against the Republicans instead of tearing it apart with infighting

    • include rather than reject Fla and Mi voters in order to not lose them in the GE

    For all the various logistical problems and strategic interests involved, I can't see mail-in revotes going forward. The least bad solution is to hand the situation over to the credentials committee and to establish fairly soon that that's going to be the solution, before people get any more infuriated and hostile over the whole horrible mess.  

    I can see a case for them seating half the Florida delegation as is. Though Clinton had the unfair advantage at that point of being the Establishment candidate at least Obama was on the ballot. Because of the flawed nature of the Michigan contest, the best thing there is to halve the MI delegates and award them half and half.

    I have to tell you (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    to the extent voters are going to be upset enough over this to abandon the party in the GE, splitting their state's delegates 50/50 and pretending like now they've been given a say will not work.  No one is that stupid.

    Parent
    i'll tell you this much. even before this (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    episode about floria and michigan reached the front burner, i listened to people telling me how much the obama campaign tactics turned them off. now throw this in, and what do you have? answer a probable lose in the general election.

    Parent
    I listen to people (none / 0) (#192)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    who tell me the same thing about HRC's tactics.  Isn't it amazing how when we talk to "people" they tell us what we already believed in the first place?

    Parent
    The whole situation is already (none / 0) (#189)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    incredibly stupid, especially considering how self-inflicted it all is.

    The MI situation is a total FU. The fact that there were so many people who felt free to cross over (both ways) because the Dem contest wouldn't count messes it up completely. So if they use records of who asked for which ballot on Jan 15 all those Dems kos told to cross over and vote for Romney will be disenfranchised, along with all the indies who voted McCain to stop Romney but would otherwise have voted Obama. And I can't see Obama going along with using registered Dem voting lists from 2004, as has been floated as well.

    It's all spin from here, and up to whoever can get their narrative to be the accepted one. It's interesting to note that Levin was pointing out a couple of days ago that the process is ongoing and that the MI district conventions are going to proceed on the basis of the vote as if everything is perfectly normal.  

    As for how stupid anyone is, well, I would have thought no one could be stupid enough to get Democrats into a situation like this that might undo what should have been a slam dunk in November. But here we are.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Wow!

    Parent
    Um, (none / 0) (#191)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    wow back?

    Or could you be more specific?

    Parent

    I really have a problem (none / 0) (#185)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    when people refer to Hillary as the establishment candidate. What has been obscured during this race is the fact that she is trying to become the first woman President in our history. She definitely had some advantages with name recognition, but to act as though she was the incumbent, or a shoo-in until Obama came along, is just false.

    I would also argue that she was at a disadvantage at the time of the election. She had just lost South Carolina, the first time either candidate had really been trounced. In addition, the news was full of stories about Bill's "dirty" campaign tactics and racist statements. I think now that she's on much better footing it could be argued that she will do better in Florida, especially since I have seen no data that indicates more of Obama's supports stayed home than Hillary's, despite what the Obama campaign would have you think.

    Parent

    Have you forgotten HRC's (none / 0) (#194)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    original campaign theme? "Inevitability" ring any bells? Challengers/non-Establishment candidates don't get to run with that one.

    Parent
    I think it's the piercing of Obama's. . . (none / 0) (#198)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    inevitability, however short lived it was, that's sent given vapors to the demento-sphere.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#201)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    I will agree with you at least on calling it the dementosphere. Some usually rational people are certainly saying some pretty astounding things.

    Parent
    I wouldn't expect you to agree. . . (none / 0) (#207)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    with any of the rest since, reading back over it, I can't make much sense of it myself.  I think there may be an extra word or two in there.

    Parent
    Blame it on the (none / 0) (#208)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    Malign Influence of the Dementosphere.

    Parent
    that was her theme? Really? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    I don't recall seeing it on any bumper stickers.

    Parent
    my eyes have been opened (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    as to just how goofy the supposed democratic leadership is in my humble opinion. the gang who can't shoot straight. they have the majority in congress and constantly cave in to the repubs. now they are doing just about everything they can to lose the presidential election.

    In the interest of fairness (none / 0) (#188)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    I will keep advocating for seating the delegations, or a revote. But I'm not too exercised over Obama's "hypocrisy" on this issue. Every time the Clinton campaign has done anything for political advantage, Obama's supporters get all bent out of shape about dirty campaigning and Rovian tactics. I don't like seeing Clinton supporters act the same way. Obama is simply maneuvering to effect an outcome that is best for him. I really have no problem with that.

    I'll be unhappy if he gets his way, and I'll continue to say that it's unfair. But getting apopletic over standard campaigning practices is the province of the Obama people, IMO.

    Uh..... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    I guess taking a swipe at the Democratic Party not a "vapors" offense to the Obama supporters:

    "The Democratic Party is going to run a mail-in election and they're going to police it and they're going to - I mean, I think it's a nightmare," senior Barack Obama strategist David Axelrod said Monday on MSNBC

    Well, I think I may be getting a case of the vapors... It seems like a problem to me when the head of the Obama campaign insinuates that the Democratic Party cannot "police" itself and attacks the competency of the party's democratic system in a frame that reminds one of anti-government rhetoric. Team Clinton, maybe a little blowback on this.

    BTD (none / 0) (#210)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    An excellent opinion piece from Eugene Oregon breaking down all sides of the FL/MI delegate argument in arguing for a "by mail" revote.

    http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=76202&sid=5&fid= 1

    Obama Camp Resisting Revotes | 210 comments (210 topical)