And So It Begins...

The first shot in the renewed fight to seat Michigan's and Florida's delegates is fired by the states' governors, Jennifer Granholm and Charlie Crist. From Marc Ambinder, their joint statement:

"The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right, and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of 5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions.

According to the DNC and RNC, Florida and Michigan have violated party rules by moving up their primaries. Today, we each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties' nominees. We must restore the rights of the more than 5 million voters whose voices have been silenced."

This statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, of course. Charlie Crist is a John McCain supporter and Jennifer Granholm is a Hillary Clinton supporter, both of whom would no doubt prefer that the Democratic delegates from these states be seated (assuming McCain shares the conventional wisdom among Republicans that they'd prefer to go up against Clinton in the fall.) It's interesting, then, that the statement makes this sort of vague call for the state and national party chairs to "resolve" the issue rather than calling for the results from the January contests to be ratified at the convention, which has been the Clinton position up to now. Does the fact that the statement from Granholm, a Clinton supporter and sometime surrogate, is leaving open the possibility of a re-vote represent some evolution in the Clinton party line? That may be reading a bit much into the statement, but one thing is clear: as Chuck Todd said last night on MSNBC, Howard Dean can no longer sit this out. It's your move, Chairman.

Update [2008-3-5 16:41:50 by Todd Beeton]:A-ha, Michigan Liberal brings us this bit from The Detroit Free Press that confirms the Clinton camp is warming to the idea of do-over contests:

Results were too close to call in Texas early today, but even before Clinton won in Ohio, her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he would welcome a second chance in both states (Michigan and Florida), where Clinton won what are, for now, meaningless primaries.

"We're all for a primary in both states because we can't go into a general election and say those votes didn't count," he said. "But do-overs cost millions of dollars. It's up to those states."

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, said the victory in Ohio changes "the landscape a bit" and could open the door to a Democratic caucus -- not a primary -- in Michigan, though it would have to be privately funded and both candidates would have to agree.

Why not a primary you ask? Blogging For Michigan has more from Granholm:

"It could not be a primary because a primary is publicly paid for, and the taxpayers would not spend any more tax dollars on a primary. So if there's anything it would have to be a caucus, but we'd have to have a way to pay for it without taxpayer dollars."

This insistence on a caucus doesn't bode well for Clinton who would obviously prefer a primary to a caucus but maybe the ultimate compromise is a caucus in one state and a primary in another. Either way, we're inching ever closer to two do-overs, you know, just in case this primary season wasn't unprecedented enough for you. Ironic that in their efforts to increase their relevance in the process by being first, Michigan and Florida may ultimately turn out to be the most important contests of all by being last.

Update [2008-3-5 17:21:25 by Todd Beeton]:I hate to say this but I sort of agree with David Brooks:

She’ll have to make the case that everybody’s vote should count. She should offer to split the $15 to $20 million cost of a Florida re-vote with Obama. If he says no, she can ask why he is against democracy. Why does he like the small turnout caucuses over the big turnout primaries?

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic nomination, Florida, Michigan (all tags)



Cheat to Win

The new Clinton strategy is clear.

And even cheating probably won't help her.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Re-vote is fair and has been done before... If the Clinton camp is pushing this rather than the "seat them 'cos I won the one that everyone knew wouldn't count" strategy, then Hillary should be applauded.  It's much better than the sore winner/loser (depending on how you look at it) approach...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

BTW, I don't think you'd hear much complaining form the Obama supporters on this, too.  We want it to be clean and fair... we also like the idea of energizing the party in FL an MI...  For us, party building comes first, not the presidency.  It's the whole reason why we like Obama... look at how he's growing the party in places that have been ignored for TOO long!

Republicans don't ignore the northeast, yet we ignore red states!  That's ridiculous!  

But, I digress....

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I am an Obama supporter, and I have no problem with a new election.  I would have a serious problem if they used the results of the previous election, however.

by agpc 2008-03-05 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

There should be a revote/caucus or nothing.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
No caucuses

Vote by mail, seems cheapest and easiest to accomplish.  I participated in an absolutely hellish caucus in Kansas, and think it's undemocratic and disenfranchises voters.  I'm fairly young, but I was standing in sleet in the cold for an hour, then waiting for an additional 2 hours to be checked against the voter rolls, then standing an additional hour for the caucus to get organized.  All told, some 4 hours on my feet, my legs and joints were in terrible pain.  Elderly people, the disabled, and parents with children were forced to abandon their right to vote because of it.  I've never seen anything as shameful.  Caucuses should not be permitted to determine any re-vote, and should be abandoned out of general principle.

by milton333 2008-03-05 11:43AM | 0 recs
No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus

It doesn't need to work like your caucus did ,though.

A caucus is party driven, even if you go in and vote just like a primary. New Mexico held this sort of caucus.

A primary is state driven.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus

Why is a mail-in vote funded by the Dem party not an option?

by milton333 2008-03-05 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus

That is an option. It would be a mail-in caucus.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: No choice, it MUST BE a Caucus

And do the people who jumped shipped and voted in the Republican primary also get to participate in the Democratic caucus?  That wouldn't be right.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Actually Mark halperine said two days ago that the Mccain camp would rather run against Obama , he said  that was the feelers he was getting from the mccain camp on " the view ".

by lori 2008-03-05 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I trust Mark Halperin about as much as a Rotweiler on steroids...

We do know that McCain is afraid of the Obama organizational machine...  which is the best the Democrats have ever had...  

If he were somehow to lose the nomination, I certainly hope he will be a good democrat and lend that machine to Hillary and her camp.  The folk at my precinct office are amenable to fighting for her if that what it comes down to.

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Revote or apportion the delegates in some pre-defined way to ensure rough fairness.  I don't see how Clinton has any credibility on this issue when Ickes, who participated in stripping the states of their delegates, remains on her campaign staff as a paid advisor and when this issue only became important to her campaign about a week away from those primaries.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

The move Howard Dean needs to make is to resign in disgrace:

1) Under Howard Dean, the DNC is broke

2) Under Howard Dean, the DNC has tried to disenfranchise millions of Democratic Party voters

3) Under Howard Dean, the DNC has tried to rig the nominating process.

by hwc 2008-03-05 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Really, I was never much of a fan of Terry Mac but this would have never happened with him.

I have to say though that Terry Mac was a good fundraiser and was able to help out down here in GA with our state races.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

You gotta be kidding me.  Under Terry, the Democratic party lost both of their Senators from George, the governor, and the state legislature.  I don't know how you could call that "help".

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

And you are proposing to run a candidate that will drag all the GA dems out of office except those that live in deep blue districts? Sanford Bishop will be gone with Obama on the ticket.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Sanford Bishop's district is majority black and he probably wont even have a Republican opponent.  Obama will boost black turnout in GA-08, giving Jim Marshall the extra boost he needs to win.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

It is not majority black. It has lots of blacks in it but it is not majority. The only majority black districts are around Atlanta.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

With Obama on the ticket, blacks would make up a majority of the vote on election day.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Nope. They won't be the majority. It will be the same as always.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Nope, Jim Marshall will be gone with Obama at the top of the ticket. His district is about 45% black and it won't be enough for him to keep his seat. He'll lose 45/55 to his opponent with Obama on the top of the ticket.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Well, Trauner would lose WY if Hillary was on top of the ticket.. Scott Kleeb would have no chance in Nebraska...  so, it balances out...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Udall will lose in CO if Hillary is at the top of the ticket, as will Baron Hill in IN-09, Nancy Boyda in KS-02, Gabby Giffords in AZ-08, Anne Kirkpatrick in AZ-01, and possibly even Dennis Moore in KS-03.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Considering the fact that Obama lost AZ then he'll lose those AZ seats too.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Marshall almost lost in 2006 because of low black turnout.  That will not be a problem with Obama at the top of the district.  Hillary Clinton will bring out those longtime Newt Gingrich style Hillary haters in droves and pull Marshall under.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

You are wrong time and again about this. The GOP will define the race as black vs. white. And the majority whites will vote for Marshall's opponent in mass. Obama is a candidate that loses 1/3 of the democrats down here in GA. How does that help down ticket races? When you have Democrats who won't vote for him.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 12:26PM | 0 recs
Are you even from Georgia?

Are you even familiar with the landscape that lead to Max Cleland, Roy Barnes, and Denise Majette losing in 2002 and 2004?

Just in case you aren't, let me just point out to you that Denise Majette didn't stand a chance against Johnny Isakson in 2004.

Roy Barnes failed to realize the discontent that was festering amongst the Georgia electorate concerning the change of the state flag in 2002.

And Max Cleland, well, he was a victim of the fallout from Roy Barnes and the nasty campaign Saxby Chambliss ran against him.

You can't blame any of that on Terry McAuliffe.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-05 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Terry McCauliffe was a born loser... I don't think we won a thing while he was in charge...

As for fundraising, the Internet model that Dean created has worked very well for Obama, and now, Hillary.

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

We were able to keep the governorship and many statewide elected offices. We've lost more since Dean took over and the party is in shambles. He brought in activists who were more concerned with voting machines that putting forward an electable candidate like Cathy Cox. They were so obsessed with those machines that they put Mark Taylor up for Governor. Cathy Cox would be governor now if not for poor choices. And these same voters decided that we should put Denise Majette up against Johnny Isakson. Brilliant I tell you.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Dean win 6 seante seats and 32 house seats in two years...

Exactly how many senate and congressional seats did McCauliffe win?

Oh, yeah... zero... He lost a ton, too...

That's a lousy yardstick for success...

The Democratic establishment never did anything for the party, except keep losing to Bush by being democratic-lite... it's the young "whippersnappers" that finally got the democratic train moving again in the right direction.

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I'm talking about GA. And how was Dean anymore responsible for increasing seats than the demise of the Delay Machine?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Because unlike the demise of the Delay Machine, Dean actually got party organizers on the ground in states that had been ignored by Terry Macaullife!

by Loreg 2008-03-05 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

No he didn't. He didn't have any down here in GA at least.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Under Howard dean's 50 state strategy, we have people waiting in line for three hours to vote in Kansas and Nebraska.

Under Howard Dean, Texas is actually IN PLAY in the general election 'cos of the resurgence of the democratic party there.

The 50 state strategy works!  The 14 state + Ohio strategy has been an abject failure for so long, it should be abandoned by any sane thinking person.  Unless you think the party is only about the presidency... it's not... you need other people to get stuff passed.

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Dean had nothing to do with the decision. That was the fault of the rules committee. Dean had no choice but to enforce what the rules committee decided.

So blaming Dean is nothing but BS. Blame McAuliffe, he was more responsible because he was on the rules committee that determined no delegates would be seated.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Or Ickes.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Deans problem is that he caved into Donna Brazille.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Dean did nothing of the sort. As DNC chair he was bound by the decision of the rules committee and the rules committee ruled the delegates would be stripped.

McAuliffe, Ickes, Brazille, and several others are to blame. Dean did his job and in doing so, he is no different than a sheriff enforcing an eviction notice on a family whose house has been foreclosed. He had no choice. The ruling of the rules committee had to be enforced and it was his job to do it.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I will ask you to compare Dean vs. McAwful in terms of total fundraising during their respective election cycles and then come back here and tell the real story about fund raising.

The fact that's he's actually spending the money on party infrastructure instead of hoarding it for select elite swing states and districts doesn't mean he's not doing a good job fundraising.

Get your facts straight.

by need some wood 2008-03-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

If the Michigan primary were held May 27th(no other primaries that week), and Florida on June 14th(making it the last primary of the campaign), I'd be okay with that.

What I wouldn't be okay with is scheduling them on 4/22, or within a couple weeks of that date.

by megaplayboy 2008-03-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Why? Afraid she might run away with it?

by anna belle 2008-03-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

oooh, SNAP!

by jarhead5536 2008-03-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I am a Clinton supporter and I support a re-vote.  

If a re-vote is blocked by Obama or something, then I will support seating the delegates as they stand now - but that is the "nuclear option".  Clinton should also avoid it as it is probably very unpopular to do this.

This is a critical decision for the Clinton camp.  Just like Al Gore probably won Florida in 2000 if he had just asked for a recount of the entire state instead of a few counties, so too can Hillary win if she makes the right call here, and not the unpopular call.

Regardless of popular vote / delegate count, I think Clinton has an almost unassailably strong claim to the nomination if she can include legitimate MI and FL wins in her column.

by mikes101 2008-03-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

At this point it probably helps her to get a revote. She'd probably do better in FL with Edwards out. And she' sure to win MI with the rumors of the Detriot Machine being broken.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

She wouldn't do better in Michigan because under the current results she nets every delegate she would get because Obama would get zero since his name was on the ballot. They can both of course fight for the uncommitted but that's not delegates for Obama.

by brimur 2008-03-05 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Oops meant to say his name was NOT on the ballot

by brimur 2008-03-05 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I was talking about some of the uncommitted being given to Obama. He would have to lobby the state party for that.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Michigan would be close, in my opinion.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:30AM | 0 recs

Why do you think that Michigan would be close?

by del 2008-03-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

Jesse Jackson won Michigan in 1988.  If he could do it, I think Obama could.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

Yes but it is in Detroit. Not so much in the other parts.  The economy is bad there,  she has a lot of the dem elected establishment. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. I think it will depend on the momentum at that time.

by del 2008-03-05 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

Wait, is it no longer racist to talk about which states Jesse Jackson won?

by Steve M 2008-03-05 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

Wait, is it no longer racist to talk about which states Jesse Jackson won?

It's still racist if you are a Clinton supporter.

It's not racist if you are an Obama supporter.

by hwc 2008-03-05 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

To the extent that Michigan is contiguous with both Wisconsin and Ohio, and has a large AA population in Detroit, I think that you would have a number of factors in play that could make a close contest.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

The argument that Obama will do better in Michigan because it adjoins Wisconsin makes me cry.

First, there are about 12 people who live in the part of the Upper Peninsula that adjoins Wisconsin.

Second, Hillary won about half the counties in Wisconsin that adjoin Michigan, notwithstanding that she lost the state by a wide margin.  To the extent there's a cultural affinity, it does not favor Obama.

Obama's base in Michigan is in Detroit and Ann Arbor.  And since the turnout in Wayne County for the primary that didn't count was an amazing 50% higher than it was in 2004 or 2006, there's not necessarily a huge well of untapped potential for Obama in a revote.

I would consider it an upset of major proportions if Obama came within 5% in a Michigan primary.  I believe it will look much more like the Ohio results.

by Steve M 2008-03-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan

Maybe we'll find out.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

As an Obama supporter I would agree with your take on what should happen if Obama attempts to block a revote.

A revote is the only way delegates can be seated. Otherwise, the Chicago Bears should get to count the pre-season games in the run up to the plaoffs next year if they help them.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Why would they want to do that?  That would put them in 12-loss territory...

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Soem keywords "if it helps them" and "next year".


by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Yes...key words are good...

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I'm an Obama supporter and I totally agree. She has an advantage in those states and would be smart and morally right to fight for a re-vote. Those Democratic voters shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of elected or party officials. But counting totally invalid results would be an injustice to Democratic voters across the country by diluting the meaning of their informed votes.

by brimur 2008-03-05 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...


Heck, in a two way race she'd probably pick up more delegates in FLorida than she did the first time, too.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

False assumption. I believe the current allocation for FL is as follows:

Clinton - 105
Obama - 67
Edwards - 13

If you assume that Clinton would pick up the Edwards delegates, she would have to win the state by something like 64-36. Not going to happen. If you assume that she wins the state with the same 10% spread she had in OH, the delegate split would be 103-83. Even a 60-40 vote would only get her a 111-74 delegate split. Her margin to Obama would drop by 1.

It's worse for her in MI. The current split is:

Clinton - 73
Undeclared - 55

A 55-45 victory for Clinton (basically what she won OH by and probably very reasonable for MI) would result in a delegate split of 70-58. Here her margin would drop by 61 since she has a 73 delegate margin at the present.

If I was the Obama campaign, I would not hesitate to have re-votes in the two states as it wouldn't materially impact his overall pledged delegate lead and it would remove that hurdle to having a unified party behind the eventual candidate.

by kjblair2 2008-03-05 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

First, it's not Dean's move. Obama will control the credentials committee based on how the committee members are selected and the likelihood he will lead pledged delegates at the end of the remaining contests. So unless Hillary gets real and negotiates a re-vote the states won't count at all until he gets enough superdelegates to make them meaningless.

by brimur 2008-03-05 11:26AM | 0 recs
A revote works in her favor, too

In a three way race she lost out on some delegates to John Edwards. In a two-way race against Obama, she'd likelyu come out of the race with more delegates than the beauty contest would ahve given her.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: A revote works in her favor, too

It's not just sheer amount of delegates that matters but NET delegates. So Obama will almost certainly diminish her net over him.

by brimur 2008-03-05 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

My understanding is that both states could hold another primary after the date (February 5) and it would count. And given how the calendar worked out, it would have made more sense to do so.

I think Clinton has changed her tune because of which states she has won. She thinks Michigan and Florida are friendly territory. However unless Obama runs out of money, the only real difference is that local TV stations will make more money than they did last time.

I'd be more concerned on the Obama side if Clinton tries to usurp delegates selected in caucus states that are not considered pledged yet because the state convention has yet to occur. Many of thse state conventions occur after nearly all the caucuses and primaries are complete, but a couple months before the national convention.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-05 11:28AM | 0 recs
Clinton could at this point win a revote

in Florida and Michigan...indeed if she cn keep her may very well be the best thing for her and the party....Winning a revote could confirm her elelctability in a general election and not only aid her in terms of delegates but also the popular vote as well as reenforcing her momentum if of course it all goes her way.

by debcoop 2008-03-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
A hillary supporter who thought it through

I'm an Obama supporter.

I commend you for thinking this through.  You are absolutely right that this would be her best argument, an argument she can't make unless we have a real vote in these two states.

BTW I support having that vote in both states b/c I believe it to be the right thing to do.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I would only support a revote if it was paid by either the campaigns or the party. Florida cannot afford to spend more money on this. I think we should just accept our punishment and use it as a campaign issue when the legislature and governor are running for reelection.

by nibit25 2008-03-05 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

This brings up a good point in that the voters themselves seem very divided on this issue.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
State pays for primaries. Party pays for caucus.

It's that simple.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

MATH 101

Even if Michigan and Florida are seated and Hillary wins all the remaining 16 races by large or small margins she cannot win enough delegates to beat Obama. It is up to super delegates who will not go against the voters of their constituencies, which again she will need all the un-dedicated's and hope none will switch. Some have already done so.

What is Hillary thinking; she wants to attack, attack, attack until Obama concedes or quits; that is they only way she can win. Does anyone really believe she can win all the remaining primaries by landslides so as to top Obama's count?

by txexspeedy 2008-03-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

And he aint conceeding until he falls behind in pledged delegates.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

She's running for Veep.

It's that simple. She knows the math. She knows the Supers won't overrule the voters.

She's pushing the scorched earth because if Obama doesn't relent and take her as the Veep, she bloodies him too much to take on McCain.

I predict an end by MArch 15.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 12:02PM | 0 recs
do you really believe that?

seriously? i think she's trying to hurt him so much that the supers swing towards her. she is also going to wait and make absolutely certain that nothing comes out of the rezko trial

by omar little 2008-03-05 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

MATH 102

He cannot win enough delegates to claim the nomination.  He too, will have to rely on superdelegates.

She has the stronger case when she wins PA, and if they can bring back in MI and FL and she wins there (which she will), she will have won every state a Dem needs to win in the GE except IL.  His argument that he won small red states won't hold up.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Yeah but he will rely on getting approximately 100-150 LESS supers than her and be buoyed by the argument that they can avoid a tough choice by simply ratifying the primary results- just like they did in 1984 and 1988.

by brimur 2008-03-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Primary results /= general election.  Why is that so hard to grasp?

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

And this "won every state a Dem has to win" is so silly. It's not even true. You're telling me a Democratic candidate doesn't have to win Maine, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, Washington DC, Washington State, Wisconsin, Minnesota or Iowa? Or by your definition of "has to win" Missouri who has supported every victorious presidential candidate in the last 100 years with the exception of 1956.

So find a new talking point to disguise the fact that Senator Clinton has won less states, votes, and delegates.

by brimur 2008-03-05 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Obama's poll numbers are comparable to Dukakis in places like OH. It seems to me that Obama is really the new Dukakis, same demographics and all.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

That's the thing he will have more pledged. does she think she will got all 350 unpledged, which she will need to win?

by txexspeedy 2008-03-05 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

No way she gets all 350 unpledged.  I would be surprised if she even got a majority.  Most of these people know that they wont survive in November with the Republican avalanche of votes that Hillary brings.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

So ... With all do respect to those still supporting Hillary please realize she needed to win Texas, Ohio, and RI by landslides to stay in this. she did not. It's Over! in fact Texas just proved that at least as many folks want Obama as her. It was 65 -61 in delegates; that is a loss for her.

by txexspeedy 2008-03-05 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

YOu are so misinformed its funny.  Obama has more delegates so he wins?  No he only wins if he gets 2025.  That is the only winner there is.  If he does not he does not win outright.  So your supposing that the dems will choose him after he carries not one big dem state but Ill.?  You are just being silly here.  Obama has not enough experience to be President and he never will be unless he serves as VP for a while.  That the only way he will get even close to the WH.

by democrat voter 2008-03-05 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Yeah, actually. He will get so close to 2025 by getting just 30-35% from here forward that getting the superdelegates will be no problem whatsoever. Hllary would have to win almost 75% of the superdelegates. Winning that supermajority against the expressed preference of the primary process is VERY unlikely.

by brimur 2008-03-05 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

in fact Texas just proved that at least as many folks want Obama as her.

How do people look at election results where Hillary won by 100,000 votes and make claims like this?

Delegate counts do not mean "at least as many folks want Obama," not when Obama loses the popular vote by 100,000.

by Steve M 2008-03-05 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

The 100,000 vote number has to be viewed in relation to the total voter turnout of 2,869,000 voters. Better still to view it in percentages, with Clinton at 50.9% and Obama at 47.4%.

3.5% is still pretty close for a "firewall" state.

by s0dium 2008-03-09 07:08AM | 0 recs

and I think they should make the DNC pay for it.

I think this was the most stupid decision of all time to "punish" FL/MI.  But I agree with the Michigan governor, always have way before this became a decisive issue in the actual nomination process.

by Robert Oak 2008-03-05 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

If the dems have a chance this fall they must seat these delegates no matter if they re-vote, which is wrong on so many levels, but maybe for Mich since poor Barack wasn't even on the ballot, by his own choice.  Florida should not have to re-vote.  The vote was fair, his name on the ballot and they should count, but the dems have a way of stealing defeat from the mouth of victory.  Just like the far left demanding that Obama be the nominee and Clinton quit, so stupid.  The far left never learns.  Obama is a sure loser this fall it has already been proven, his caucus wins don't mean squat.  Clinton is the dems chance and Obama should settle for VP and get some experience if he ever wants to actually be president.

by democrat voter 2008-03-05 12:48PM | 0 recs
Go back to redstate

There is nothing far left about either Obama or Clinton.

Now the folks here at DD have been arguing that Hillary gets the votes of "real democrats" and that Obama is to the right of Hillary.

So which is it?

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

There should be no revote and Michigan and Florida should not count. They were told that they would not count if they held the primaries on those dates, they did anyway and thus they should be held accountable for breakign the rules.

by mecarr 2008-03-05 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I didn't break any rules. Can you explain to me why my vote shouldn't count?

Yes, I know some state party official whom I have no influence over broke the rules. Still, I'm not sure why that means I must be disenfranchised. It's not like the DNC rules committee is the Scalia/Thomas/Renquist Supreme Court, who would also love to make that decision about my vote.

There must be a revote, or the votes must be counted as cast. We are Democrats. One of our foremost rules is that we let people vote, and we count their votes.

by fsm 2008-03-05 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

There should be cacuses and not primaries so the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for the state violating the rules.

by mecarr 2008-03-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
The DNC in 2008 is much worse than Rep in 2000

What the DNC is doing to disenfranchise millions in Florida is much worse than what the Republicans did in 2000. Both are arguing about some silly rules that disregard the intention of individual citizens to participate in electing their leader. I can't imagine the Democrats winning Florida after this. I love Dean, but this was one big blunder.

by maxstar 2008-03-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

I just don't understand why a do-over is necessary. What is the rationale?

As another poster said, since the Obamabots and pundits are losing their minds because there are still two viable candidates this late in the primary race, they should understand why some states moved up thier primaries so they could have a say. SC and NH moved their dates up!

by India 2008-03-05 01:48PM | 0 recs
Not sure your logic is sound re:

Crist wanting the delegates seated because McCain might prefer to run against Clinton. Didn't he call for a do-over a week or so ago, when it looked like Obama might very well win Texas or Ohio, or both?

by georgiapeach 2008-03-05 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Sorry folks... she won those states.  Too bad you don't like it.  If Barry was the one who won, you'd be clamering all over the blogosphere.

Give her Florida & Michigan.

by krj47 2008-03-05 02:21PM | 0 recs
never. gonna. happen.

its a revote or nothing. the credentials commitee will favor obama.

by omar little 2008-03-05 02:28PM | 0 recs
Todd Beeton and David Brooks

Take a step back, Todd, and see who you're thinking like. Should give you an indication.

by OH Mark 2008-03-05 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: And So It Begins...

Here we go.

It's real simple.  Let's have that vote in Florida as you say.  On this we agree.

I'll even go further.

Whatever Hillary wants in Michigan (primary or caucus) that's fine with me.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 02:35PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads