I agree (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure what Hunter is thinking here.  He's generally been much more down on a revote than the Obama campaign itself has been.

---

by: jlkenney @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM CDT

Hunter? (4.00 / 1)

Why blame it on him? Obama has signed off on this.

"Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama said Friday that it is "just not realistic" to conduct do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida".

So let's lay the blame of this where it belongs in that "just not realistic" comes straight from the horses mouth.

---

by: shortfuse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Link to Obama quote (0.00 / 0)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

---

by: shortfuse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:01:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No reason not to write the legislation (4.00 / 4)

Well, I'm not in Michigan, but having been through countless legislative sessions in many states, and I believe it would be foolish for Obama to sign off on a plan that's not written.

Furthermore, there's nothing that should prevent revote backers from presenting the proposal in the form of draft legislation. Nothing. So why won't they?

Unless they want Obama to commit publicly, and then, (I'll exaggerate to make a point) the authors award a 2-1 delegate split -- one for you and two for me -- to candidates whose last names start with C. Then, when Obama balks, they'll accuse him of breaking his word.

I repeat, drafting legislation costs nothing, takes no time, and there's no reason not to do it unless there is something someone wants in the legislation they don't want somebody to see until after they've committed to support it.

Despite the national delegate count right now, it would not be prudent or responsible to assume that there is nothing in this so-far nvisible legislation that could harm Obama's chances.

---

by: GlennWSmith @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM CDT

That is the question. (0.00 / 0)

What's with this spin that they can't actually write the bill and present it unless it's preapproved? Obama would be crazy to give a blanket OK to a bill he hasn't seen. Chris's reasoning here is very strange, seems to me: first we see that Clinton is pushing for a bill that Chris says will put her out of the race. So why would that be, Chris? Maybe she's the one that's crazy. Like a fox. And why can't her supporters get the bill written?

Pretty much any disinterested observer would find a lot here that smells like last week's fish. The whole issue strikes me as a concrete example of where the candidates stand on secret government vs transparency.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:17:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (4.00 / 1)

...that it is foolish to agree to something that has yet to be drafted. And I don't think Obama's campaign is ignorant of Chris's math either. They know that anything that ends the uncertainty of how this goes forward helps Sen. Obama.

How do we know they won't draft legislation that says "only those on the original ballot can be on the new revote ballot, and anyone who took their name off the original ballot must remain off"?  

---

by: BeenJammin @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:21:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is silly (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, Obama would agree in principle to the idea of a new primary in Michigan with both candidates on the ballot, not to support any ridiculous bill that Clinton supporters in Michigan might come up with.

If they did come up with something absurd, obviously the Obama campaign could then reject the specific plan, if it's as obviously loaded as "Obama doesn't get to be on the ballot."

Do you really think Obama would take flack for agreeing to the idea of a new primary in Michigan, and then backing out when the draft proposal involves him not being on the ballot?

There might, I suppose, be something more subtle that would be involved, but I'd like to have some sense of what such a poison pill would be.

(I do agree, though, that there's just as little reason for the Michigan people to refuse to draft a bill until Obama agrees as there is for Obama to refuse to agree before they draft a bill)

---

by: jlkenney @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:18:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the Obama campaign not his Mich chair that doesn't want revotes (0.00 / 0)

The Michigan chair is just doing the campaign's bidding so the Obama campaign can look like they want a revote when they really don't.

Unlike Chris I think it is in Clinton's interest to have a revote and not in Obama's interest.

Obama wants to keep the intial delgates of out of the convention and he wants to keep any new delegates out as well.  In addition he doesn't want revotes because that would legitimate in everyone's eyes, the popular vote tallies from Florida and Michigan....indisputably she will win Florida with an even higher margin than in Jan....Michigan may be the same, but she could also have a win and she then goes into the convention with potentially more popular votes ( remember Puerto Rico is now a primary...hundreds of thousands of votes thee for her).

Obama wants to deprive her of both.  All these procedural caveats are just rationalizations to keep a revote from happening.....

He knows he can't say it clearly because obviously you are completely on the wrong side of an issue which says 1. you don't want people to vote 2. and you don't want their votes to count.  Heros don't stop people from voting...

He raises caveats because otherwise he clearly would be the one wearing the black hat.  

And that means he as much if not more than Clinton is willing to have a floor fight at the Convention...and how good is that for the Democratic party?   Not good at all.

My attitude to Florida and Michigan....Ignore the candidates...you don't need their permission....just getting that many parties to agree where to have dinner is hard enough....Make a decison....stick to it....Have a primary and just like in Field of Dreams THEY WILL COME.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:57:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A June revote is disadvantageous for Obama... (0.00 / 0)

...all the college students in MI have gone home...

But, it also may not be necessary.... If he keeps racking up delegates at his current pace, this thing might be wrapped up in mid may.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM CDT

I think they're worried about his slip in the polls (0.00 / 0)

He's down in the trackings something like ten points in three days. The Wright affair has really hurt, as has the nation's refocus on economic issues. Now he may get those people back, but if he doesn't, and Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 20 points (which currently seems not at all unlikely), I'm thinking he would rather righteously (and even correctly) claim that Michigan shouldn't be seated at all than risk a re-vote that he might lose by 15 points. Because if THAT happens, and there's a re-vote in Florida too and he loses that big as well, the best he can hope for is to back into the nomination with more than half the party pissed at him.

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He is only down 3 points in the tracking (4.00 / 1)

and still has a lead of 2 - And, it has been a very back two weeks for him -

---

by: cardboard @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a 15 point loss in Michigan? (0.00 / 0)

That's not going to happen unless there's been a total collapse which will lead to Clinton winning, anyway.

---

by: jlkenney @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:20:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't count on it.... (0.00 / 0)

The way it is being proposed, one only need sign a piece of paper saying they did not vote in the Republican primary (under penalty of yada, ya).  However, there will be no checking to know who is lying.  Democrats who crossed over will NOT be allowed to vote in the redo - unless they lie.  

McBush won MI in 2000.  As Detroit goes, so goes the state.  Kwame (Mayor of Detroit) is in a sex, perjury murder scandal up to his ass. Plus I hear gossip that there is a rift between Kwame and Obama.   I don't know if Kwame will have the time or inclination to GOTV in Detroit.  MI Republicans will vote big time for HRC.

In my own small circle of family and friends, at least 50% of us crossed over and voted in the Republican primary.  Why not?  We had no candidate on the ballot.  I was certain "uncommitted" would end up in Hillary's pocket.  We were told we were a beauty contest and that we wouldn't count.  So the only way to make my vote count was to vote in the Republican primary.  None of us will be able to vote in the Democratic primary- unless we lie.  This does not favor Obama.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:46:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know where you get 10 points... (0.00 / 0)

...and yes, it is a bad week... however, their campaign is on top of things, and now the headlines are changing towards his favor.  He's actively changing the narrative, and I'm sure the church itself, as well as its most famous member, Oprah, will help mitigate the damage.

It's too early to tell how much of a recovery he will have.  I was convinced Friday that this was the beginning of the end, but as I saw the story change on Saturday and Sunday, I think he might get through this relatively unscathed and inoculated for November.

It's too early to tell.  We will know in about two weeks.  We should expect some further erosion in polling this week, but, hopefully, a bounceback next week.

If his polls are still suffering after two weeks, then he might have suffered some lasting damage.  It's too soon to tell, yet, but I have confidence that he will recover.

We shall see...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:39:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tracking polls (0.00 / 0)

Had him 7 points up or thereabouts at this time last week. He is now (by Gallup) 3 points down and (presumably) dropping like a rock. Why else would he schedule a "talk on race" for tomorrow and market it like crazy? Surely that wouldn't be in his plan right now if his internal numbers weren't going south.

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:02:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I undesrtand why Obama is dragging his heals... (0.00 / 0)

The Clinton campaign has been throwing the kitchen sink at him for over a month.  They are even willing to prop up John McCain, if it in some way can diminish Obama.  

Obama would be insane to trust team Clinton to play by the rules.  I'd have a team of lawyers reading the fine print on this one.

Further, agreeing to a Michigan and/or Florida re-vote extends the campaign season and allows team Clinton to once again move the goal posts back.  Do we really need a mid-June vote for so many delegates?  The issue was agreed to by all participants already that these states violated party rules and would have to sit this one out.  

Extending the process simply allows HRC another reason to stay around poisoning the Democratic well.

It is virtually impossible for Team Clinton to cross the finish line ahead of Obama in either pledged dekegates or popular vote (she's already lost as far as number of victories is concerned).  Yet knowing all this, it appears HRC would rather blow up the party than have someone else get HER nomination.

Unfortunately, there is no strong leadership at the top of the party to negotiate a settlement here.  

Michigan and Florida representatives need to be counted at the convention, but this is a mess of their own making.  Maybe these delegations can be like House Members from D.C. or The U.S. Virgin Islands... they vote in committee, but not on the floor.  In other words, they can vote on platform, but not on nominee.

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM CDT

Not the popular vote (0.00 / 0)

Clinton can fairly easily win the popular vote, especially if MI and FL are re-voted. She's within 700k now (about 2.4 percent) and is projected to win PA by half that margin. She could rather comfortably take the popular vote just by winning PA, FL, and MI. And the rest of the calendar (such as it is) looks pretty decent for her as well. Remember, she is now tied in the national preference polls, with some pretty significant momentum in her favor (she was 8 points down as recently as last week).

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and whatever number... (0.00 / 0)

she picks up in PA, she loses an equal amount in NC and Indiana.  Regardless, the threshold it not votes or states, but as Harold Ickies said right out of the box, "it's about the pledged delegates."  

Clinton will simply not have as many as Obama.  It won't even be close.  The numbers are NOT going in her direction.  Every week, she falls further and further behind.  She no longer has the time to catch up.  Like it or not, she simply can't catch him.

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's accept your argument (0.00 / 0)

You are essentially doing  a riff on the inevitability argument but shifting it from Clinton to Obama. Okay, fine. Let's say you are right. There still needs to be a revote. If Clinton has no chance, and blah, blah blah for explaining how she has no chance with the popular vote. Then there really shouldn't be any problem. It's kind of that simple. Unless she really does have a shot. In which case, the argument for trying to block revotes in MI and FL make a lot more sense.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a matter of timing and damage to the party (0.00 / 0)

FL and MI would like to be scheduled after Puerto Rico in June.  This party simply cannot wait until mid-June for a nominee.  In normal circumstances, possibly, but it's only going to get bloodier from here and significant damage is being done to our brand and our candidates.  

I'm sorry MI and FL had primaries outside of DNC rules, but they DID.

And as I said earlier in my first post, doing these re-votes gives false hope to HRC and her supporters.  It allows her to have a reason to hang around.  While she hangs around, she's already proven to give props to McCain and dump on Obama.  Simply not helpful and definitely not productive.  

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:10:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your post is disingenous (4.00 / 1)

a) I maybe could have possibly just barely bought the "for the party" argument although that does bring into question what kind of party is it that can't survive the orderly process of voters voting

b) But, seriously, you totally lost credibility with the I am doing it for the Clinton suppoters part. I am sure they can do without that kind of help.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:23:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is an interesting read... and spells it out quite clearly. (0.00 / 0)

http://www.lansingcitypulse.co...

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:55:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unless it says we are going to let a fair process occur that (0.00 / 0)

counts the votes, I am not interested. I have a link for you: http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...

It nicely spells out from where I derive my arguments.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, ps (0.00 / 0)

if you want a sure fire way to piss off Clinton voters (which is what you are talking about and who represent half of the votes cast in the Democratic primary and almost an equal number of delegates) , keep up these arguments about FL and MI. If you want a sure fire way to make sure everyone at least feels like they had their voice heard, try to spin FL and MI.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:26:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Party Argument? (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton agrees with EVERY other presidential candidate that MI and FL will not be rewarded for breaking DNC rukes.  Their votes would not count.  Now, Hillary Clinton makes the argument that they should?  Who's the one alienating voters?  Do you think if she were to prevail, any Obama supporters would come out for her?  Really?

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:51:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quit The Obama Talking Points Already (0.00 / 0)

We all know that if this was flipped 180 Obama and his supporters would take up the Clinton argument in a NY Second.

Which btw the Clinton argument is the correct one because it honors the voters instead of honoring the lead of one candidate.

Dean and the DNC has said that a redo vote is in order and acceptable. Why don't you accept that?

---

by: shortfuse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:16:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's no ones talking points. Further... (0.00 / 0)

don't for a second believe I would feel the way you do if the situation were reversed.  

I never started out an Obama supporter.  In fact, I was for Gore, then Dodd, then Edwards, etc.  This is about agreeing to a set of rules and living by them.  No campaign signed off on the DNC guidelines for primaries with a gun at their back.  

What disgusts me, is trying to change the rules when there not going in your favor (Caucus delegates are less important, it's not pledged delegates it's big states,etc.).

It's trying to win at any price.  She can't win unless she cheats the system.  No thanks.  I don't support those tactics when there carried out by Republicans and I certainly won't accept it when carried out by someone in my party.  Obama was not my first choice, but Hillary's lack of integrity or respect for the system has made it impossible for me to support her.  

If Obama had done these things, I start shopping for a new candidate.  You tell yourself whatever you need to, in order to maintain your position.  But don't for a second accuse me of the same.

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:30:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let Me Repeat (0.00 / 0)

The DNC wants either new primaries or to have it go to committee. So you say it against the rules but it is not. Dean and the DNC have revised the rules and a way to honor the voters - something Obama has made clear he doesn't want to do. That is something you can't justify.

So keep trying to ignore what it is the DNC is doing. Everyone know what they will honor re-votes. I have mentioned it to you twice now. But yet you still ignore it and go on with your obvious talking points. What else could they be if you know what has been approved by the DNC but insist to ignore and talk nonsense. The main topic of this thread is even trying to get Obama to do the right thing. But you ignore all of this and say they are not talking points?

---

by: shortfuse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 16:18:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure the DNC will figure something out. (0.00 / 0)

What's more, Obama and Clinton will have to agree to whatever is ultimately decided.  Regardless, it's not going to matter because the math is against Clinton and she cannot realistically receive enough delegates to get the nomination.  It has nothing to do with favoring one candidate over the other.  The question you'll need to ask yourself is if you can support the party nominee if and when that person is Obama.

---

by: War Horse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:14:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't have to ask myself anything (0.00 / 0)

as I am a life long Democrat.

As for delegate count. It depends whose counting. Early on this blog said it was the popular vote that counted, not the delegate count. Whether they will hold to that as the possibility of Clinton approaches of her overtaking Obama on the popular vote is yet to bee seen.

---

by: shortfuse @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 19:04:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Candidates are irrelevant at the end of the day to me. (0.00 / 0)

 I am saying these things  based on the principles I hold rather than the candidate I support. I keep wanting to give up on many of you because it appears your principles are about as deep as whatever is advatageous to your candidate. If you are so shallow that you don't believe enough in the democratic process enough to let people vote fairly then I don't care whether you turn out. It would be a pyhric victory anyway since the principles would already be lost.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:25:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like many of your (0.00 / 0)

comments, but this idea (not just yours, but commonly-held by many, including many who aren't Clinton partisans) that we have to change the rules for MI and FL really baffles me.

As I understand it, the DNC makes the rules.

They made the rules.

FL and MI violated the rules.

Now we're talking about some way of retroactively immunizing FL and MI from the consequences of violating the rules.

I honestly don't understand. I mean, I get that in a perfect world every American adult would vote and every vote would be counted. But if, say, the rule is that I must vote in my state on February 3, and I can't because of a family emergency, am I entitled to reschedule? If there's a snowstorm, and hundreds or thousands of people can't make it, are we entitled to reschedule? If the rules say that I need to be a registered Democrat, and there isn't same-day registration, even though there should be, can I vote without being a registered Democrat? Can I reschedule?

This seems like such an easy question to me, but I keep reading intelligent people who disagree. And the discussion inevitably degrades into partisan sniping, which is pretty unhelpful. So any real explanation would be appreciated.

---

by: Joel @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 19:19:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Taking responsibility (0.00 / 0)

means that we sometimes have to accept we/I screwed up.  Unfortunately, Florida doesn't seem to want to accept their responsibility.  Michigan does seem to accept its responsibility and is working on a solution.  Whether or not the Clinton and Obama campaigns can find common ground between them and the MDP is yet to be determined, but they do seem to be working toward a solution (both campaigns are vigorously defending their positions).

Florida wants a pass.  And Clinton doesn't seem to be interested in what is right or what the responsible thing is--she seems to want to fan the flames, so to speak.

Florida may be forced to accept their responsibility--perhaps they will be kicking and screaming, but they must accept their part in this unfortunate state of affair.  The fact is is a solution to this problem must be found by Florida--and agreed to by the two campaigns and the DNC.  The onus is on Florida--in part because they failed to live up to their promise.

The really sad things about this is that regular people (FL voters) didn't really have a say in this, and, the rest of us (you/me/everyone-else) are being preyed upon by political opportunists intent on exploiting our feelings and making us feel guilty about the situation our poor Florida brethren are in--with the hope our guilt will let them have a do-over.  Sadly, Floridians aren't even being asked for a mea culpa!  

The bottom line is: you/we/I/all-of-us must accept responsibility for our actions.  This includes Floridians.  They haven't...they must.

---

by: cabresch @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 20:21:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where do you get your numbers? (0.00 / 0)

Last numbers I saw had Obama up by roughly 1M.

In any case, like the lead-up to March 4th when his poll numbers took a dive, the Wright thing is having a short-term effect now (as Obama hit 50% for the first time in those tracking polls about a week after March 4th, when the news cycle cleared up again... strangely enough, it was the day after that that the Wright thing flared up... hmmm).  After the latest round of fear-mongering is over, his numbers should clear up again.  If they don't in, say, a week or 2, then maybe Obama should start to worry about it.  Right now, I'm sure they probably expected a hit in the polls because of the Wright thing.  Lucky for him, there's over a month until the next election.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who is projecting she will win by 350,000 in Pennsylvania? (0.00 / 0)

If she wins by 15 points, that implies a turnout of 2.3 million.  That's higher than turnout in Ohio, which is about the same size and an open primary state.  And I doubt she'll win by more than 10 - 200,000 seems like a much more likely haul than 350,000, and Obama will win a fairly sizeable victory in North Carolina that will make up for it.  Michigan and Indiana will be close, Obama will win South Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, and there aren't enough votes in Kentucky and West Virginia to make up the difference.  It's quite hard for her to come out ahead in the popular votes so long as you aren't using the bogus Michigan numbers.

---

by: jlkenney @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:26:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It depends on the turnout (0.00 / 1)

2.3 mil is the turnout, from the last election. if the numbers are higher, then her margin of votes will be higher. One can go back and forth as to the turnout model, but it does seem odd that PA would be the same as the last time given the turnout in other states. It also depends on the numbers in FL, etc.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:29:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No it wasn't. (0.00 / 0)

The turnout in 2004 was less than 800,000.  Turnout should be lower than Ohio, because it's a closed primary.

---

by: jlkenney @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's currently up by more than that (0.00 / 0)

in the polls, and PA could EASILY surpass 2.3 million, especially with the Repub primary over and done with.

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:06:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a) no; and b) closed primary (0.00 / 0)

Firstly, several polls show him closer than 15.  The new Quinnipiac poll, for instance.  He's hovering right around there right now.  But I think it will tighten.

Secondly, it's a closed primary.  Republicans and Independents can't vote in it.

---

by: jlkenney @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

While Obama might be virtually guaranteed the nomination without FL&MI, it will hurt him on the public perception side if he blocks this.  He should step up and take the VERY slight risk mathematically for a HUGE gain in good will.  His argument is that MI shouldn't be counted because they broke the rules.  But if they are willing to apologize and redo the vote in a way that follows the rules, then he should accept.  That's what the public will see.

I do think it is fair however, as others have pointed out, that he agree carefully.  It would seem that Clinton has nothing to gain from a revote, so he's right to be suspicious and take things slowly.  Maybe she's just bluffing to get him to look bad.  However, he should be working hard to get it done right, and not being passive about it.  No stalling.  He needs to be perceived as working FOR the Michigan people and not against them.  It is the Democratic leadership in the state that broke the rules, not the people.  We don't know how hard he is working behind the scenes, but I hope he is.

I wish my border collie could run for President.

---

by: svotaw1992 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM CDT

Gotta agree with Chris here... (0.00 / 0)

I don't know why Obama is dragging his feet.  Getting the MI/FL excuse out of Clinton's hands is the best thing he can do for himself right now.  If the offer is actually to do a full re-vote of MI and to seat half of the FL delegates, Obama should be jumping up and down for that.

The only thing I can think of for him holding off is that he's trying to negotiate a better deal as far as the super delegates go.  He probably wants their votes either gone or only half-weighted as well (or, at least, some penalty should be applied to both FL and MI, as they both broke the rules).

In any case, this seems like a good deal for him, and from the looks of it, it seems like he could certainly win MI.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:52:13 PM CDT

While your logic makes sense, (0.00 / 0)

it also makes sense to assume that the Clinton and Obama campaigns are acting in their own perceived rational self interests. If you're right, both of them are acting against their own interests, and it should be the Obama campaign pushing for a revote, and the Clinton campaign opposing it. Why do you think they aren't? Are they all just idiots around there?

---

by: illissius @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:12:35 PM CDT

Damn, I must have fucked the HTML in there somewhere. (0.00 / 0)

Hope it doesn't spread to the rest of the thread.

---

by: illissius @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:15:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My guess is Super Delegates... (0.00 / 0)

I think he's holding out for maybe a better compromise as related to the Super Delegates... The revotes probably won't change things all that much, but the Super Delegates gives Clinton a pretty good boost.  From this perspective, it makes sense why Clinton would be pushing for some way... ANY way, that the delegates would count, and why Obama would be pushing for the status quo.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:36:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe maybe we're missing something (0.00 / 0)

on the incentive structure.

The best possible outcome for Obama are the delegate compromises, which don't require revotes. He must think he still has a real shot at achieving these compromises; I would tend to agree. The biggest advantage in their favor are the absence of required resources. With each day the various parties that are desperate to get this resolved but unable to reach an mutually acceptable agreement with funding are put in a tougher position, thereby making these fallback compromises more and more appealing.

Obama's got everybody else over a barrel. Or, perhaps more accurately, Team Obama thinks its got everybody over a barrel.

Rather or not they really do is another question. Personally, I'd be relieved if he were to agree to the MI revote.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:16:00 PM CDT

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Obama's standard line has been that he wants to see the delegations seated. Period. What that means is that he wants the delegates to be split 50/50 which would allow the delegations to participate, but would make the primary irrelevant to the current contest.

Obviously Obama would do better with a revote than if the MI delegation were seated AND their votes counted. So, Obama is trying to play for his best possible outcome, keeping the Michigan primary out of the equation while allowing the Michigan delegation to participate.

---

by: corax @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:36:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also (0.00 / 0)

Both Michigan and Florida have scads of superdelegates that would automatically go to Clinton no matter which candidate won the redo. If Obama can win it by compromise, you can bet that compromise would include the supers.

---

by: corax @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:38:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's funny to read the posts that simultaneously (0.00 / 0)

claim Clinton is up to tricks even as trying to play tricks. For the record, I don't trust her much either, but then, on this I don't trust Obama, and frankly, it shouldn't be decided by either of them. THere should be a revote because the first process was unfair to voters. Their representatives screwed them over. THe DNC was right to not count the prior votes. BUt, there is also the balancing of the other side - allowing the voters to have a real vote and let the chips fall where they may. This would show real audacity.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:29:58 PM CDT

The key metric for Obama (4.00 / 1)

is to push up the date as much as possible when his number of SDs is greater or equal to hers. Let's call this event SD-Day. It's not necessarily going to come, of course; she could turn the tide due to whichever scandal hurts him the most. He is banking, IMO, that SD-Day is coming and that it will be seen as something of a watershed moment.

Any event that threatens to delay SD-Day is something to be avoided by Team Obama at all costs. Agreeing to a delegate rich showdown in June is extremely unappealing from this arguably limited perspective.

That's what's going on here, I expect.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:46:48 PM CDT

The dirty side of politics (0.00 / 0)

It is one thing to support the very reasonable position of a revote in Michigan--afterall, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.  However, it is quite another thing to twist that position around to somehow mean that any effort to ensure that the revote is fair and fully represents the interests of the people of Michigan is an attempt to stonewall the effort to revote, or is an attempt to disenfranchise Michigan voters.  That kind of portrayal is disingenuous, dishonest and dangerously manipulative.  Such is the dirty side of politics.

Politics is dirty, but that doesn't mean reasonable people don't understand that it is absolutely necessary to have everything spelled out before agreeing to binding terms.  Everyone one of us would insist on knowing what our responsibilities would be before we enter into a contract or any other kind of agreement.  So, why is it that Obama isn't given the same courtesy?  Certainly, if Obama did enter into an agreement--that could be changed after-the-fact by other people--he would deserve exactly what he would get--AND, it would be a clear indication of exactly what Clinton wants voters to think about him: that he lacks good judgment.  Obama is doing the responsible thing not just for himself but also for voters.

Obama needs to continue to insist on a revote--One that is fair and represents the interests of Michigan voters, and is clear about the details before signing his name and agreeing to its terms.  The terms must be understood by both candidates, the Michigan democratic party, and Michigan voters.  Then these terms can be put down on paper and the candidates agree in writing, with their signature.  (Keep in mind, one of the conditions being bandied about is that democrat voters who dared vote Republican and voters who did not vote in the 'illegal' election would NOT be eligible for the new vote.  Hmmm... what's going on with that?)

---

by: cabresch @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 13:51:47 PM CDT

I agree. (0.00 / 0)

   Obama should agree to the re-vote as long as it's not a "mail-in" primary.  I'm tired of hearing about Michigan.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:16:30 PM CDT

Me, too. eom (0.00 / 0)

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:49:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm just not getting it either... (0.00 / 0)

Just looking at the Michigan demographics, Obama would either lose very narrowly or win.  Based upon nothing but the higher African-American population, the smaller white percentage, and assuming equal spreads on the white/black vote as Ohio, Obama would lose by six instead of nine (this is not factoring in Asians or Latinos of course).  This probably shows his floor is losing by seven to eight points in Michigan.  

Assuming a "Texas model" where black turnout is slightly higher, blacks vote for clinton slightly more, but Obama ends up with 44% of the white vote, Obama ends up with 51% of the white/black vote before Latinos or Asians are even accounted for.  

So yeah, Obama's reluctance (or that of his surrogates) to have a re-vote looks stunning here.  About the only excuse I could think of is they don't know what the re-registration window is.  Could the state legislature decide to set the voter rolls as they are now for the sake of the primary, not allowing the Obama campaign enough time to re-register folks?  

---

by: telephasic @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:18:02 PM CDT

Don't forget the Republicans...eom (0.00 / 0)

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:50:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see it (4.00 / 1)

I don't follow this logic. Revotes don't get Obama any closer to 50% of all delegates since in all likelihood he will lose Florida by 10+% again and Michigan looks to be a virtual tie. He'll gain some delegates from both states but the total needed to win outright will increase by as much or more also. He's going to need superdelegates to win the nomination just like Clinton will regardless of what happens with Michigan and Florida.

Similarly I don't see how not having a revote makes Clinton more likely to win. She needs those delegates to pull closer and make her bogus arguments about winning big states' primaries and the popular votes credibly to the superdelegates. If she doesn't get the revotes and Obama and the DNC have more influence on the credentials committee, wouldn't that make it harder not easier for her to win?

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 14:18:20 PM CDT

Uncertainty helps Clinton (0.00 / 0)

She is probably not going to win FL by 23 points again, and certainly isn't going to win MI by 55.  Right now she can argue to the faithful that she has a 130 delegate reserve, in the form of the MI and FL delgations and their already declared supers.  Since this is more than Barack's current lead, she can claim viability and get her backers to ignore the math.

They revote, that drops to a gain of more like 40.  It helps her, but by reducing the uncertainty it establishes that she is firmly behind.  That's not good for her.

---

by: APoxOnBoth @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 18:50:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Read an interesting (4.00 / 1)

comment from a local assemblymember the other day, an Obama supporter.  His point was that with all that has gone on since the illegal Florida and Michigan primaries, there is no longer a level playing field for the candidates in those states.  That, along with the fact that the Obama camp probably doesn't think the party would dare seat the Michigan delegation the way it is currently configured,  leads one to conclude that they are in no rush to have a revote, and that if there is a revote, they will hold out for the best deal possible and not rush into anything. As I said once before, someone who aspires to be president should be a tough negotiator.  That is what people look for in a president, and I think we have that in Mr. Obama.

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:09:33 PM CDT

dKos voters (4.00 / 1)

I was going to support Matt's take on this until I saw Marc Ambinder brought up an interesting point:

The proposed primaru re-vote legislation in Michigan prevents those who've voted in the Republican primary from voting in the re-vote.

Fair enough, right?

But about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents.

It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot.

If a very large swath of Obama supporters are to be excluded from the re-vote then Obama shouldn't support it.  I call these dKos voters since Marcos specifically asked Democrats to vote for Romney.

Turns out, time travel is harder than it looks on TV.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 16:21:56 PM CDT

er, make that "Chris' take" (0.00 / 0)

You two just look so much alike... or something.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 16:24:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's what I've been saying... (0.00 / 0)

There is suppose to be "no check" to see who voted, but there will be an attestation - punishable by... If you lie, you can vote again.  This is not good for Obama.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 17:52:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How To Make the Vote Fair (0.00 / 0)

32% of the voters who voted in the Republican primary were Democrats and independents. How many of those are potential Obama voters who would be barred from being in hte the re do???? Why should Obama sign on to something that is intrinsically unfair???? Chris???

---

by: C.B. Todd @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 16:43:04 PM CDT

As I pointed out at MyDD (0.00 / 0)

The MI Senate is controlled by the GOP.  They want him to buy a pig in a poke, agree to a plan that will be written not only by partisans of his and Hillary's camapgins, but that will have to pass muster with the Michigan GOP, a group that has no interest in a fair Democratic primary, but a definite interest in making this as difficult as possible.

So he wants to see the plan before he agrees to it, and that's obstructionist?

---

by: APoxOnBoth @ Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 18:10:34 PM CDT