I've been saying this is the best option.

A do-over primary is one thing, but a do-over under different rules that favor Obama is very different.

This is a nightmare.

I was saying the same thing to a friend of mine last night.  I'm sure they could work out a solution to have one primary (FLA) and one caucus (MI).  

This is absolute BULLSHIT!

Florida and Michigan voted. Count their votes now. This is the Democratic Party! I am absolutely ashamed that we disenfranchised 2 million voters all because of "rules." Give them their delegates!

No way. This would be an outright favor to Obama. Besides, caucuses in a large state like Florida would be a nightmare.

Didn't we get pilloried as Democrats eight years ago because some people were talking about a "revote"- in Florida, nonetheless.

It was absurdity for the DNC credentials committee to make this rediculous ruling anyway. Isn't it easier for a couple of dozen of them to revote rather than the ENTIRE PARTY ELECTORATE of two states doing so?

The people of Florida and Michigan have already spoken. It's not our fault that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan. Seat the delegates.

Uh, boy. Caucuses in states that don't usually do caucuses?  That could be ugly.  Especially if the results turn out very different from the primaries.

Well it would be impossible to get the Secretary of State to pay for another election.  And if the Democratic Party allows this to go to a floor fight to determine the outcome they run a huge risk of turning the tremendous surge in new voters completely sour to the Party.  I think as we get closer to that there will be tremendous pressure on the Superdelegates to back whoever is winning and hopefully take the meaningfulness of Fla. and Mich. out of the equation.

The people have voted. Now, the Democratic Party needs to do the obvious and support democracy.

It's as simple as that.

any do-over favors obama, since he will actually be able to campaign. his supporters will come out in full force, as will clinton's, and the margins, no matter who wins, will be smaller than they were in the fake primaries.

whoever thought of that idea should lose their job. WTF is the DNC doing?

For a credentialing committee, all the states need to do is decide how they will seat their delegates. FL can just say "proportionally"

Michigan would need to devise a plan that would account for uncommitted, and then say "proportionally"

thats IT.

The last thing we need is even more complications in our nominating process. We're going to have caucuses in states that have never had them? They're going to make up the rules and delegate counts and all that from scratch? And caucuses usually are a way to nominate state delegates to a state convention, right? Do they still need to have a state convention? What about all the people who voted in the primaries but who can't make it to the caucus time?

Heckuva job, Deanie.

This is stupid. People voted. Just let their votes count. Howard Dean screwed up and he'll just have to let it be. Give Clinton her delegates and Obama his delegates and let the uncommitted and Edwards delegates stay uncommitted.

This has become a nightmare. If it looks like it favors Obama then tons of Dems will sit on their hands this next election so Obama can lose in a landslide.

This would be a nightmare.

First, it would void the votes of almost 2,000,000 Democrats who have already gone to the polls.

Second, it would be a nightmare to have a caucus in states that aren't used to it.  It is hard enough in states that have the party structure that has done this dozens of times.

Third, it would be an outrageous favor to Obama to hit the do-over button on two states that Clinton won fair and square.

Lastly, states pay for primaries; state parties pay for caucuses.  There is no way the state parties in MI and especially FL will agree to pay for caucuses.  The estimate for the Florida party to hold caucuses was millions of dollars that they simply do not have.  They have enough trouble meeting payroll.  How the hell, and why the hell, should they come up with 5 - 10 million they don't have just so 1.7 million Floridians can have their votes erased?

The whole idea is outrageous.

This is a horrible idea.  Caucuses should be eliminated.  Anybody with a brain knows they favor Obama.  Older voters and single moms have the most difficult time showing up, and they are part of Hillary's base.

I still like Bowers idea...  

Give Florida as it is and in Michigan Obama gets all the uncommitted.  Clinton has a net advantage, but it is close enough to be considered fair.  The Florida uncommitted  (Other candidates for Delegates) will be allowed to vote for whomever.

Another possibility...

Split the Delegates in half.  Award proportionally that half and then have a caucus for the rest.

Really the DNC should have taken a cue from the RNC and just penalized them half.  This whole crap could have been avoided by minimizing their impact, but not disenfranchising them.  

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

email the DNC and let them know how you feel.

Over 2 million voters participated in the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan. They have made their decision and it would be folly to disenfranchise those voters.

A caucus is not the solution. A caucus is good for party building but it is inherently inferior to a primary in picking a candidate most favored by a broad representation of party voters. Primaries are dominated by activists who make up a small fraction of the electorate of either party. Florida and Michigan have already voted. Those votes should determine who gets the delegates.

What about a compromise and giving FL and MI delegates 1/2 value, including superdelegates?

I don't think that will effect what eventually be a delegate victory by Obama, the way this is playing out.

Isn't that the probable eventual result?

...can we *please* be done with this bullshit about how the state parties screwed themselves by moving the dates.

CAUCUS dates can be moved by state parties.

PRIMARIES are official state business and are scheduled by the LEGISLATURE.  In Florida this means the Republicans scheduled the primary.

Are we really going to disenfranchise Florida Democrats because of what the Republicans did?

I was somewhat ambivalent about this until this development from the DNC...now it is easy: Stop this self-destructive idiocy. The people--a couple million of 'em--voted. Seat the delegates!

People can scream all they want about the injustice of disenfranchisement or the injustice of changing the rules mid-game, but the only sensible answer is a negotiated settlement.  Either the DNC can broker it or, if they feel like they've contributed enough to the process already, I know an awful lot of professional mediators in my line of work who have resolved thornier problems than this one.

And if either side wants to play hardball and refuse to strike a fair deal, then I won't shed a tear if the issue ends up getting resolved against them at the convention, and the vast majority of good Democrats won't either.

This could really put Obama in a bad spot, he's not on the right side of the narrative here.

The Democrats Abroad have voting via mail, fax, telephone, Internet, and in-person. (There's a company that does this, and they seem to do a pretty good job.) Schedule the same in Michigan and Florida for 7 days in May. Boost Democratic turnout to a frenzy -- way past January -- and see where the chips fall.

The Florida and Michigan state parties screwed up. They've only held the equivalent of straw polls, and not even a very good one in Michigan. If they fail to fix their own mistake, the DNC can and should step in.

RESTORE DEMOCRACY! RESTORE OUR DELEGATES!

If Obama wins the nomination without sitting the FL and MI delegation, it will be the darkest day in American democracy since the Florida fiasco in 2000.

Tell me this, what happens if a caucus is held and Obama wins the MI caucus? There will be tremendous outrage, especially after she won the primary. If delegates is what you are worried about, Obama will get delegates from FL and MI.

Just my 2 cents but Florida I think should just have their delegates cut in half and split up according to the proportional vote of the primary that too place.  Both candidates were on the ballot and neither campaigned.  And the primary was decided upon by a Republican controlled legislature so even with the stats above it still would have passed without a Democratic vote so there was not really any reason for the Democrats in the state legislature to vote against it and look like they were trying to take away the ability of all of Florida's citizens to assist in choosing each party's nominee since it was going to pass anyway.
Michigan is a different problem.  From reading above  I guess they have a Republican state legislature but wouldn't the primary law have to have been signed by the Democratic Governor?  Hillary should not be punished for winning but Obama shouldn't be punished for removing his name out of a stated party loyalty.  Yes he probably was at least partially motivated to do so to make Hillary look bad but in reality we don't really know what was going on in his head.  I think it is fair to say that much of the undeclared vote would be his but some were probably for Edwards so that is hard to split up.  Maybe we can somehow divide it up where Obama gets the delagates pledged to him for the undeclared vote but a portion of these, say half, will actually be Edwards delagates that are now pledged to Obama.  If that makes any sense.

In either case if this plan does come to fruition, would either state be smart enough to plan a date during the 6 week lull between Mississippi and Pennsylvania where they can have all the attention?

Let's all just back up here a little:

Does anyone else find it terribly ironic and somewhat disgusting that 8 years after watching a Presidential election be stolen from us the Democratic party elite is actively disenfranchising the voters of Florida?

Sheesh. It's no wonder we lose elections.

If this is payback for the chairmanship race... when it was pretty obvious that the Clintons weren't in Dean's corner (but couldn't coalesce the party around an alternative).

We already know that former Clinton staffer Rahm Emmanuel doesn't get along with Dean (and hasn't endorsed neighbor Obama here in Chicago).

As both a Deaniac and an Obama backer -- I gotta say...

Chickens come home to roost!

Can I also mention that Florida is filled with minorities that are not represented by the four states chosen to vote in January. There are a lot of Older Americans, Jewish Americans, Gay Americans and Americans who immigrated from Latin America, including relatively significant Haitian, Venezuelan, Cuban and Brazilian populations. I know as a Gay American that I don't feel at all represented by Iowa, although I am sure there are some Gays. But, could somebody in the DNC have special thoughts about Gay people in Ft. Lauderdale, Miami and Orlando helping to select the next President.

How do voters who never held a 'Caucus' have one on the fly?  This is a bad idea!  In Florida all the candidates were equal with no advantage to anyone except maybe Obama whose campaign commercials were seen in Florida (by accident).  After Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas the Obama Campaign will be screaming for Caucuses in MI and FL!

As a Florida voter who voted absentee this year I have to say the idea of a caucus sickens me. My vote would be meaningless and I would not be able to cast another.

We voted, seat our delegates.

I wonder how many of you bitching about this are from Florida or Michigan? Or how you would feel if it was your vote being trashed?

I think the compromise that makes the most sense for both candidates and that each could agree to is to hold the caucus in MI and let the FL results stand as is.  Why?  There are several good reasons:

*  FL is a Clinton demographic, all names were on the ballot, voters came and voted anyway, and Hillary won.  If there were a contested primary, Hillary would still win, but probably by a somewhat smaller margin.  It is advantage Clinton to keep the oiginal results.

*  MI is an Obama demographic, his name wasn't even on the ballot, and he lost.  If there were a contested primary there, odds are he wins.  Letting them re-caucus would allow the vote in that state more accuartely represent the voters.  This is obviously advantage Obama.

They both could agree to this because they each get the advantage in the state that is closest to their base demographic.  Additionally, it makes more sense to do a "do-over" in the state where the likely state winner's name wasn't even on the ballot, so you could easily justify the re-caucus in this state only on this basis.  Finally, every state gets it's delegates seated in a way that benefits everyone.  If both candidates came out in favor of a plan like this, then the squawking heads on both sides here and in the media would calm down as well and the party would just move forward.

Clinton had an overwhelming percentage of the absentee votes in Florida, which were cast before Obama really surged. Considering the rapid way he's caught up to her all of the country in just the past month, a re-do would definitely be interesting.

As for people claiming that the horiginal vote should count -- I think that's quite a stretch. If nobody campaigns there, the candidate with the most recognizable name (obviously Hillary) has the clear advantage. It's silly to assume that vote would have turned out the same had the candidates all known it would come into play and actually campaigned there.

As for Michigan -- how in the world can Clinton supporters advocate counting a vote where only 1 out of 3 candidates was even on the ballot??? Ridiculous.

Remember that Edwards, Obama and Clinton ALL agreed that Florida/Michigan would not count. Clinton suddenly turning this into some moral "every vote must count!" rhetoric is hilarious considering she clearly didn't find it morally reprehensible when she AGREED to it. If she'd taken a stand against it at the time, fine. But whining about it now when she didn't have any moral qualms before is just completely disingenious.

MI should have a caucus because Obama's name was not on the ballot but FLORIDA? where what 1.7 million people already voted??? No way! Just seat the delegates! This is so stupid, people voted honor their choice. This makes me ashamed to be a Democrat. Are we now the party that doesn't votes to count?

There is no perfect solution to this, but I think that NJIndependent and rossinati are on target with the suggestion that Florida be represented based on their primary results and that Michigan have a caucus.  The Florida primary results are "closer" to being fair since at least all of the candidates were on the ballot, while basing Michigan's representation on the primary is clearly unfair since Obama took his name off the ballot based on the DNC's original disqualification of their primary.  

Further, seating Florida as-is is a bit unfair to Obama, while switching to a caucus format in Michigan is a bit unfair to Clinton, so the two should roughly offset each other.

I'd also note that it is important for the Democrats that whatever is going to be done should be decided soon, rather than leaving the decision until the convention.  A compromise is much more likely if it is made BEFORE it becomes clear which candidate is ahead.

It's ironic. Until Tuesday our "problem" as Dems was that the process was too front-loaded and didn't give the race a chance to play itself out. Now it's the opposite: one, the FL and MI dilemma won't be fixed any time soon, putting the fate and identity of 313 delegates in limbo; two, another 795 delegates are set to be chosen in primaries and a caucus on and after May 6; and, three, more than 400 uncommitted superdelegates remain in play and the value of their pledge increases, not decreases, over time. That's what, 1,500 delegates out of 4,051? Our problem? While the Reps will generally unite around McCain in the next few weeks, we'll be still duking it out in May. The narrative "Reps get over McCain and see chances improve - while Dems' Dis-unity Continues" is emerging, stoked by the Reps and a news media looking for a fresh storyline. (Ah, Denver, we have a problem.)