Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL

This just in via e-mail, Howard Dean's statement on the Michigan and Florida delegate situation (emphasis mine):

"We're glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue.  As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today's public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options.  First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates.  We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time.  The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

"Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the ten states who have yet to have their say.

"As we head towards November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that's ready to fight and ready to beat John McCain.  After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America's families in the White House.  Now we must hear from the voters in twelve states and territories who have yet to make their voices heard."

In other words: it's in the states' hands. Just so happens, the Florida Democratic Party released this statement earlier today (h/t Ben Smith):

"It is important to remember that the Democratic nominating process does not end until June 10. The Florida Democratic Party continues to work with our leadership, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and the Democratic National Committee to ensure this state is fully represented at the National Convention.

"We have discussed many things, ranging from the plans for the general election to a potential alternative primary to the process for appealing to the credentials committee of the National Convention to seat our delegates as currently allocated.

"It is important that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and important requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Between that and the willingness of Jennifer Granholm to hold a caucus, it certainly seems the states are amenable to a re-vote of some description. So I guess it's up to the candidates, then.

As I posted earlier, Terry McCauliffe has already communicated a willingness to accept primary re-votes. Senator Obama, what say you?

Update [2008-3-5 20:22:0 by Todd Beeton]:Can't really blame the Obama campaign for not wanting to play along. This from David Plouffe:

"I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign — we're in a heated contest here — to have to be the facilitators here," Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."

As for what Michigan may have in store as an alternate contest, this is interesting:

Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a "firehouse" contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. "Firehouse" contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections.

The party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, said there was general consensus that it could not be held at taxpayers' expense and would attempt to generate participation from about 1 million state Democrats.

Members of Michigan and Florida's Democratic House and Senate delegations are reportedly meeting tonight on Capitol Hill to discuss "ways of getting their state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention."



Display:


Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (2.00 / 1)

I think a re-do of a Primary in FL and a Caucus in MI would be just about the best solution to this problem.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (2.00 / 3)

No caucus. I am sick and tired of that undemocratic process.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i agree NO CAUCUS IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC (2.00 / 1)

after what I just witnessed in houston caucus...it's ridiculous...


by nikkid on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Help (none / 0)

I don't know the answer.

Do the state parties fund primaries, or do the states?

Sorry, but if it is the latter and I'm a Michigan voter, I'd be utterly pissed that a cash-starved state is funding two separate primaries because Granholm gambled on pushing up the date of the primary and lost.  Even as a D.


by ChrisR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0)

Which had neither a clue nor problem about until this year.


by MNPundit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement (none / 0)

A firehouse caucus isn't really a caucus - it's more like a primary run by the party.  Or, at least, it's intermediate in form between the two.  Clinton won the only similar contest that's been held this year - the one in New Mexico.

Surely such a procedure would be more fair than the one we've already had, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: michigan ballot (none / 0)


reminder:  Obama and Edwards took their own names off the ballot.  It was their choice, and Obama ought to live with it.  Talk about judgment.

Clinton, Dodd, Gavel and Kucinich all had their names on the ballot.

p.s. Obama took his name off the ballot, but his supporters ran a campaign for him encouraging voters to vote undecided.  Mr. Undecided.  


by moevaughn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

Agreed.
*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

I know conventional wisdom is that obama is in a stronger position to be the nominee because of his pledged delegate lead , however after yesterdays win throw conventional wisdom out of the window.

If these states hold revotes and the trajectory continues the way it is right now , there is a strong chance she wins the nomination


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:04:33 PM EST

fair enough (none / 0)

This is a compromise we can all get behind.  Both Clinton and Obama would get a fair shot at the delegates.  Let the best candidate win.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (2.00 / 2)

Check your math. I believe the current allocation for FL is as follows:

Clinton - 105
Obama - 67
Edwards - 13

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.

The bottom line is that it's very difficult to come up with a scenario where Clinton can get a pledged delegate lead without seating MI and FL as is. And since the credentials committee is going to be based on the results from states not counting FL and MI, Clinton will be at a disadvantage here as well. So she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.


by kjblair2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Missing the point, I think, with respect (none / 0)

This has nothing and everything to do with superdelegates:

1)  MI and FL superdelegates are more likely to go with Hillary.  Right now (and I'd have to look it up), its something like a 11-12 committed superdelegate edge to Hillary,

2)  Right now, Hillary's campaign needs a compelling narrative to gain superdelegates in order to override Obama's pledged delegate lead.  Right now, he has more votes, more states, more delegates.  She needs to change the paradigm:  if she wins (say), PA, IN, KT, NC or OR and then MI and FL, she has a better argument to make to superdelegates.  Not to mention that she might have more total votes if this occurs.

Its a gamble, but the current system doesn't result in a win for her unless she persuades roughly 2/3 of the superdelegates not yet committed.  She can't do that right now.  She could if she has a different narrative.


by ChrisR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the point, I think, with respect (none / 0)

I agree, she has to change the narrative but it's not going to be easy. It's likely that Obama will pick up enough delegates in MS and WY to more than offset the delegates Clinton picked up yesterday. MS is very similar to GA in demographics and Obama carried GA by a 2-1 margin. WY is a caucus and based on results from nearby states with caucuses, he should do well there. It's entirely possible that he'll pick up 13-15 delegated in those two states alone. Then you have 6 weeks to PA where Obama is in better shape with respect to pledged delegates than he was before March 4th. And probably continued erosion in Clinton's superdelegate lead.

Assuming Clinton does well in PA, and I think she is favored there, Obama is probably going to offset that in NC 2 weeks later. As a result, unless there is something that happens outside of election returns, it's just a very tough road ahead for her. From there on out, it's trading a couple of delegates here (KY) for delegates there (OR).


by kjblair2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mississippi (none / 0)

Mississippi is not very similar to Georgia in demographics.  Georgia has a giant metropolitan area full of educated transplants.  Mississippi is a wretched backwater.  What they share is an enormous African American population - 37%, the largest in the whole country.  Expect Mississippi to look more like South Carolina or Louisiana than like Georgia - Obama will not win 42% of the white vote in Mississippi.

Which is not to say that Obama won't win it easily.

Looking to later states, Pennsylvania does indeed look good for Clinton at the moment, but six weeks is such an eternity that who knows.  I'm not sure about Indiana - the most recent poll had Obama well ahead, but it's a lot more like Ohio -Cleveland than it is like Wisconsin.  The remaining western states look good for Obama - Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana.  The remaining Appalachian/upper south states should be easily won by Clinton - Kentucky and West Virginia.  I have no idea what to expect from Puerto Rico - the governor endorsed Obama, and Jesse Jackson won it in 1988, so I'd say it's a total toss-up, at best.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the point, I think, with respect (none / 0)

She will be a decided underdog in NC and OR.  Indiana is probably a jump ball.

My point is that her situation is even more bleak than you are acknowledging.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan would be competitive. (none / 0)

Clinton could only get 55% of the vote against Uncommitted and Dennis Kucinich, with no campaigning.  I don't think she'd have an easy time getting the same amount with a real contest.  I'm not even sure she'd be favored - Michigan has a considerably larger black population than Ohio does, and the non-Detroit metro parts of the state are arguably more like Wisconsin or Minnesota than they are like Ohio.  Southern and Southeastern Ohio has a kind of southern/Appalachian component that helped Clinton a lot - she's generally done extremely well in Appalachia (winning northern Georgia and Alabama, East Tennessee, southwestern Virginia, southeastern Ohio.)  Michigan has nothing like that.  If it happens, it ought to be a very competitive race.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not likely (none / 0)

A true re-vote would probably result in close to a tie in Michigan - or even a victory if it's a caucus. In Florida Clinton will win but probably not by more than 10%. That would give her about 15 delegates - not nearly enough to help along to the nomination. She already won by 33 without anybody campaigning.

Also, yesterday did nothing to change conventional wisdom. She won by as little as 4 delegates and as many as 8. A great night for Hillary results in single-digit victories in two of the most Hillary-friendly states in the Union? Sorry, that just confirms conventional wisdom - Clinton's path to nomination is increasingly unlikely. And a true re-vote of MI and FL would remove one of the last sticking points to an Obama nomination.

Whatever David Plouffe says, a re-vote is the best possible scenario for Barack Obama.


by elrod on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not likely (none / 0)

The best possible scenario for Obama is probably him winning by enough to allow him to seat the current Michigan and Florida delegations without endangering his victory.  Failing that, a revote would probably be better than refusing to seat delegates from those states, especially since he ought to be very competitive in Michigan.

I think yesterday changed conventional wisdom to the extent that if Obama had won both, the race would be over, and if he'd won Texas Clinton would have been in a very precarious position, whereas now she's still in it.  I don't think her chances of winning are much higher than they were, though.  We'll see how things look after Mississippi, I think.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

I'm scared about the caucus format.  It hasn't been kind to Sen. Clinton.


The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:04:59 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

I see this as a big statement just because the DNC position before this seems to have been that Michigan needed to hold a new contest in order to have their delegates count.  For the first time, I think, it is likely that the current delegate allocation could be accepted by DNC Credentials Committee.  Michigan has its conventions on March 31st where they will select the delegates based on the results from the January 15th contest.  I think that a revote would only happen if the nomination is still deadlocked after PA with no candidate close to being in the lead.  


University of Michigan College Democrats Blog
by MIWolverine on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

So if Obama's lead holds, then there is no re-vote and the delegates are seated after he gets the nomination?


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Attempted Coup d'etat (none / 0)

The only way that delegation gets seated "as is" is if the nomination is in hand for Obama or if Clinton manages to get enough supers to jam it through the Credentials Committee and on to a floor vote of the entire convention.  

If Clinton wins the nomination on the basis of these delegates, I predict that all hell will break loose and she will loose in November.  The idea that these delegates selected in contests that both the voters and the candidates had been told would not count is nothing less than an attempted Coup d'etat.  It would be like pouring gasoline on the party and striking a match.


by upper left on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Attempted Coup d'etat (none / 0)

The only way it gets seated as is if either candidate has a majority without them.  If Obama does, he can seat them and still be the nominee.

If Clinton has a majority with superdelegates, then you get a nasty floor fight.  The credentials committee, which will be dominated by Obama as winner of the pledged delegates, would refuse to seat them.  Then the Clinton delegates on the credentials committee would issue a minority report, and appeal it to the full convention.  The full convention would then have a vote.  If Obama has enough superdelegates for the nomination, they refuse to seat the delegates, and Obama wins the nomination.  If Clinton has enough, they vote to seat Florida and Michigan, but she'd have won anyway.

Either of those possibilities is pretty terrible for the party, though - I hope it doesn't come to that.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Attempted Coup d'etat (none / 0)

Absolutely agreed. I would add that in order for her to overcome his likely pledged delegate lead of about 100 (assuming they split the remaing delagates, which I think is optimistic for her), she would have to get over two thirds of the remaining unpledged supers.  It is hard to see how she would justify such a pitch.

If she can push revotes in MI and FL and pick up another 29-30 delegates then it might get interesting.  I am not familiar with the math, but I think she has to have the revotes to have a chance.  


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no caucus (2.00 / 2)

no caucus, period.  Something is going wrong here when they do not match the popular vote.  If they do a do-over, they have to be primaries.  I think that's also more fair.  Hillary has a good claim because she already won those states, esp. Florida where all were on the ballot and nobody campaigned there.  So, if the Hillary campaign gives up those claims to a do over then Obama camp should give up on caucuses and that's a reasonable compromise
plus I believe this is going to come down to a messy tie and one indicator is the overall popular vote.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:16:47 PM EST

Re: no caucus (2.00 / 1)

Why not let the state parties decide for themselves, like the do everywhere else?  That would seem fair..


by Why Not on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No primary (none / 0)

no primary, period. Something is going wrong here when they do not match the caucus vote. If they do a do-over, they have to be caucuses. I think that's also more fair.

u c wut i did thar?


by SleepingWillow on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No primary (none / 0)

argument by assertion. boo.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, you phail (2.00 / 1)


by SleepingWillow on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no caucus (none / 0)

Michigan couldn't afford the first primary...

Who's going to pay for the second one?


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my vote? (none / 0)

Every idiot who personally signed onto this stupid plan to punish these states and this whole super delegate, extra delegate for good Dem district, differential calculus with a lemon twist system in the first place.  ;)


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Logic? (none / 0)

So you are pissed at the DNC for attempting to enforce its calendar?

Why aren't you pissed at the states for breaking the rules?

Your logic escapes me.


by upper left on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, esp. MI (none / 0)

I agree with the Governor of Michigan and I did from day 1.  The reason I agree with her is that I know Michigan is ground zero on economic decimation and it does need to shape the debate.  Michigan is leading the rest of the nation....on where it is going economically, which is down, down, down.

I think they needed to be able to get those issues front and center on the table and I don't blame them for trying everything they can.

We have Democrats, right now, in Congress, doing Bill Gates bidding instead of dealing with offshore outsourcing, insourcing, trade right now and she's pissed and I agree.

Throw your rulings and rules around but I stand with their reasoning on this one, but I also assumed this all would be over at the latest by super Tuesday and it wouldn't have really mattered.  


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Law of Unintended Consequences (none / 0)

By violating the rules and avoiding punishment, Michigan and Florida will allow Iowa and New Hampshire to violate the rules when we finally come up with a viable primary schedule.

In addition, Michigan has undermined the party building process this primary is generating all over the US.

I can tell you nothing is going on, people are pissed and there is a real probability that any ground game won't get started until after Labor Day...

Bad decision all around. How could they have know it? The fact that the odious little troll who runs the state Senate was so very eager to sign on to this...


by Nazgul35 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Still no logic (none / 0)

Are you saying there should be no rules? Or that the rules should not be enforced?  That would result in utter chaos.  

The DNC appointed a Commission which changed the calendar by adding NV to the early states for increased diversity.  You may not like the four early state plan that they came up with, but that was the plan.  MI tried to break the rules; they were punished, and given plenty of time to come up with an alternate plan.

I do not like the idea of stretching out the calendar, but under the circumstances I am fine if MI wants to come up with an alternate plan, even at this late date.

I am not fine with seating the delagation based on an illegitimate election.  Counting delegates from an election where the candidates were not allowed to campaign and where most were not on the ballot is obviously unfair.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ickes? (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:25:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan is broke (none / 0)

A primary is MUCH more expensive than a caucus. It's the reason small states tend to have caucuses. They don't require voting machines. They're run by party volunteers and not state election officers. And they only take up a few hours. That's why state parties prefer them.

That Hillary cannot organize her voters for caucuses is a mystery but it's a sign of Obama's organizational acumen. Personally, I think it's indicative of the two candidates' styles in general. Hillary prefers big media, big state, big messages driven by carefully targeted and polled research. Obama prefers more grassroots-style organizing and networking among supporters to generate enthusiasm and support.  His approach lends itself better to caucuses. Hers does better in big states where she has machines (Strickland, Villaraigosa, Menino, etc.) to get out the vote. It's the old way vs. a new way.


by elrod on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamamanics (none / 0)

Well, you might say that but in my view the Obama people are really impossible to deal this and if I was some 70 year old woman trying to deal with that in a caucus, well, trying to combat them might just give me a heart attack.

I don't think it's fair and I think there should be primaries.

I think they should trash these caucuses after watching this, across the country.  


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamamanics (none / 0)

The idea that old people are the ones likely to be disenfranchised by caucuses is a strange new canard of this election season, pushed by Clinton supporters.  The traditional complaint about caucuses is that they're dominated by said old people.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how I see it (none / 0)

I sure wouldn't want to be locked in a room with 'em and I'm not old.  On the blogs it's like a mugging sometimes.  Sorry, not everyone of course but some it's just frightening.  

Anyway, forget which supporters do what, it pretty obvious that the ability to dominate a group, influence others and all of the other things gets into the way of who an individual really wants in the privacy of the voting booth.   I think that privacy should be kept.

I think they should clean up this entire primary mess but I also think they should get rid of the electoral college.  


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:59:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan is broke (none / 0)

or, it is the new way (directly building voter support through direct primaries) versus the old way (democratic operatives, grassroots folks picking the candidate in caucus).
They are different; they achieve different objectives. Neither is bad and neither is new.
by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

What Dean acknowledges, but many blog commentors do not, is that the option of taking the issue to the Credentials Committee is within the rules.  One of the only two permissible options within the rules, in fact.  The claim that it would be "changing the rules" for the Credentials Committee and the assembled delegates to seat MI or FL is simply not accurate.

That said, it's obviously in everyone's best interest to have a resolution of this situation that most everyone can get on board with.  A re-vote could very well be that resolution.  But it's important that the potential for the issue to be decided at the convention is still lurking in the background, in case either campaign decides to be unreasonable in terms of resolving the issue.

Some delegates will support the position on the rules that benefits their preferred candidate no matter what, but it's likely there will be at least some delegates who would look unkindly upon the campaign that failed to accept a reasonable compromise and would resolve the rules dispute against that campaign.  So in my view, everyone has an incentive to play ball.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST

Within the Rules (none / 0)

Let me decode that for you. Florida and Michigan can go to the Credentials Committee, absolutely. That committee will be controlled by...the winner of the pledged delegates! (That's an oversimplification but functionally close enough.) Anything coming out of the Credentials Committee goes to the floor for a vote of the pledged delegates, ex-Michigan and ex-Florida.

That's not a good outcome for Clinton. So the best option for Clinton at this point is to take her chances and roll the dice in both states, to see if she can pick up some net delegates in Party-sanctioned contests. Obama is not opposed to that -- declaring neutrality via Plouffe -- because that option has always been open to Florida and Michigan, just as Delaware and D.C. did in past years. States can submit delegate selection plans to the DNC even after other states start voting. They just cannot schedule contests (with four sanctioned exceptions) prior to the starting gun. Pretty simple, but Michigan and Florida screwed it up. But the DNC is patient, and the states can still follow the rules.

So this is up to the two state parties. Dean is reminding them that they've got two doors to pick. Door #1 is the best for everyone (which seems to be converging to a primary in Florida and caucus-plus in Michigan). Door #2 is the default if they cannot get their act together, in which case they'll be seated if they don't matter and they won't if they do, assuming Obama has more pledged delegates.

I'm delighted the state parties are apparently going to submit new delegate selection plans. I think we should all applaud that.


by BBCWatcher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

uhh. that assumes that people are willing to dienfranchise voters in these two states because the DNC was playing primary hardball. I think that may be overly cynical. The credentials committee or the DNCC do not want to tear the party apart, either.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

So instead they will come up with a solution that seats some of the delegates but not all of them, essentially giving MI and FL their say but not overturning the nomination.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

yeah. dont know what you are watching but it doesnt seem like things are gonna be 'overturned.' This 'pledged leader is clearly the winner' is a dodgy claim, particularly if Hillary maintains the popular vote (if we include MI & FL which the credentialling comm would be accepting under your estimation.)

I dont think manipulation of the rules by either candidate is going to engender much support.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

Applying the stated penalty (1/2 delegations, or what the GOP did) wouldn't be a manipulation of the rules.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (2.00 / 1)

No, but there's no way Obama is going to voluntarily give up the nomination in order to seat those delegations.  And that's what would have to happen for those delegates to actually decide the nomination.

Be honest here.  If the situation was reversed, do you think Clinton would voluntarily give up the nomination in the name of "fairness" to those states?

Basically, the choice before the Democratic Parties of Michigan and Florida is as follows.

1) Take a chance that the nomination will be settled, one way or the other (and the way with Obama winning is by far the more likely possibility), before the convention, and thus that the presumptive nominee can allow the delegates to be seated without effecting the outcome.  But realize that if the nomination is not decided, there is a certainty of a nasty floor fight, and a distinct possibility that they won't have delegations seated.

2) Agree on new contests that would allow a delegation to be seated regardless.

Option 2 seems better to me.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

question.. (none / 0)

does it go to a vote before ALL 4000 pledged delegates, or is it a smaller group proportionally broken down according to each candidate?


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: question.. (none / 0)

Omar!

Pledged and supers are the DNCC voters, no?


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i thought it was pledged (none / 0)

but i could very well be wrong


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: question.. (none / 0)

First it goes to the credentials committee, a smaller group.  A minority on the credentials committee can appeal the ruling to the full convention, though (including both pledged delegates and superdelegates).


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

You are assuming that all of Obama's delegates, including superdelegates, will support whatever interpretation of the rules makes him the nominee, even if that means Michigan and Florida have no say in the process, even if Obama was responsible for shooting down a reasonable compromise along the way.  That is one possible scenario, but it is not the only scenario.  Not all of the superdelegates, nor even all of the pledged delegatges, are necessarily partisans at the expense of the party's best interests.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

If Obama acts like a total dick about it, it's certainly possible there will be some defections.  It'll be interesting (in a gruesome, car wreck sort of way) to see if this happens.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Within the Rules (none / 0)

Note an alternative possibility, though -

Clinton delegates might defect, also, on this issue.  In particular, delegates from New Hampshire and Iowa, and perhaps from Nevada and South Carolina as well, don't want to reward Michigan and Florida for breaking the rules.  They are ground zero for defections on this issue - quite possibly some of them would rather throw the nomination to Obama than give up their monopoly on the early contests.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a path to victory (none / 0)

I will say it again:

If this is the only way she can win it, it will not be worth having.

This will be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory, because she will loose in November.  With Hillary's high negatives she will need high turnout among the Dem base.  If Obama is deprived of the nomination in a way that is viewed as illegitimate it will depress turn-out:  many will defect to McCain, many will protest with Nader, and many will stay home.

Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters must realize that this is not a path to victory.


by upper left on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a path to victory (2.00 / 1)

Yes, if people like yourself insist on spreading the meme that she cheated and changed the rules even though she won within the rules, it's entirely possible it will be destructive for the party.  That's on you, though.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its not about RULES (none / 0)

its about perception, its just a reality that if Obama goes into the convention with more delegates and Hillary comes out the nominee then she will lose to McCain. and i think the opposite would be true also. Campaigns dont start in August anymore.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not about RULES (none / 0)

The fact that it might be difficult to start a campaign in August has nothing to do with the issue of who goes into the convention with more pledged delegates.  Under that reasoning, we're screwed if the nomination isn't decided before the convention, regardless of which candidate emerges.  That might be true but it's not what we're talking about.

My point is simply that Donna Brazile-like threats to disrupt the party and scream bloody murder about rulebreaking even if no rules are broken are attempts to blackmail the party.  And while I can't stop anyone, I don't think much of the argument that blames the victim of the blackmail for refusing to give in.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not about RULES (none / 0)

"Under that reasoning, we're screwed if the nomination isn't decided before the convention, regardless of which candidate emerges.

EXACTRY!!!!!  This is why this race cannot go beyond June at the absolute latest.  The undecided supers need to coalesce behind the candidate with the most total delegates at that time.  Who ever is behind at that point needs to withdraw for the good of the party.  Perhaps the trailing candidate can be given the VP spot as a consolation prize for making this sacrifice.  It will be difficult, but it is necessary to avoid a fractured party whose prospects will be damaged in the fall.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:41:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not about RULES (none / 0)

Candidates who win because a competitive candidate stepped out after two major victories does not seem like it would yield a strong candidate either.

One of them has to win this thing, otherwise, they lose. We need a strong candidate and neither has pushed through.

what is the problem? IT IS MARCH.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not about RULES (2.00 / 2)

Fine...she doesn't have to quit tomorrow.

But at some point, it will be mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch Obama.  Just look at the upcoming calendar.

Obama will probably net 7-10 delegates from Wyoming and Mississippi, thereby offsetting her Ohio gains.

Unless she wins Penn by more than 20, she nets only about 8 more there.

Obama probably offsets and overrides Penn. with an estimated net of anwhere from 8-13 from Indiana and North Carolina.

Folks, he's up by about 140 delegates right now.  Where does she close that gap?  

Superdelegates?

Let's say she gets the remaining SD's to break 60-40 for her.  Wouldn't you call that extremely optimistic?  Well even in that situation, she picks up a net of less than 60 delegates.

Where does she close the gap?


by goodnbad on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its not about RULES (none / 0)

She could get to about +12 in Pennsylvania while winning the state by 10, I think.  But that's about the best she can do.


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a path to victory (none / 0)

Your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the basic, common sense "unfairness" of screwing Obama out of the nomination by counting votes from states where he was not allowed to campaign, where his name did not even appear on the ballot, is remarkable.

If you approached a group of kindergarteners and asked them if it was "fair" to set up the rules of a game in this manner, I would be willing to bet that every single one of them would say "no."

Hiding behind the argument that the Credentials Committee has always had the ability to change the sanctions it applied, after the fact, does not change this basic unfairness.  MI and FL broke the rules. They were sanctioned by the Rules Committee of the DNC.  The candidates were told that the delegations would not be seated, and they were prohibited from campaigning in these two states.  Does it make sense to count votes from an election where the candidates were not allowed to campaign?  It simply does not make sense.

If you, or other Hillary supporters, or the campaign, think that you can get away with this bit of "hocus pocus" without paying a price you are all fools.  Again, this is not fair and not a path to victory.


by upper left on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:26:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

I, for one, think this is a positive developement.  The PARTY needs this issue resolved in a manner that is fair to everyone involved.  I do not think either candidate will shrink to the challenge of two more primaries or caucuses.  This can only be good news for the principle of voting for our candidate rather than having less democratic processes determine the outcome of the nomination.


by Why Not on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:17:58 PM EST

Dean's Statement (none / 0)

Good news.  This puts an end to Hillary's fantasy that she was going to walk away from FL and MI with a bunch of delegates as result of those bogus 'elections.'   She lost an awful lot of respect by taking that position, and I will never forgive her for that shameless attempt.


by global yokel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM EST

Re: Dean's Statement (none / 0)

What the hell? You're not making any sense.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's Statement (none / 0)

Clinton had months to complain about the unfair punishments dealt to MI and FL, but waited until the week before their primaries to portray herself as in favor of their seating.  Members of her campaign staff were on the committee that stripped MI and FL of their delegates.  Let us just say that there is at least the appearance of gross hypocrisy here.


by rfahey22 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI, FL (none / 0)

We keep hearing spurious numbers for pledged delegates. I recommend taking a look at the NYT count which currently shows BO with only a 37.5 PD lead:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/results/delegates/index.html

As for Florida, the delegates as currently allocated should be seated. If they want to spend the money to redo the whole primary in the proper fashion, it's their choice. I think the DNC is being pigheaded about all this.

Michigan could do a cheap sort of primary that wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything. It should be Dem-only, held in schools over a 12-hour period, using simple paper ballots that can be hand-counted. The two campaigns can chip in to foot the cost of printing the ballots. No machines or readers needed.

Caucuses are very undemocratic and should be abolished.


by Nobama on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:22:33 PM EST

just in case anyone doesn't know (none / 0)

The NYT is not including delegates from caucuses on the rather thin basis that they could change in the later rounds.  Naturally, that lowers Obama's estimated lead -- for now -- for all the reasons we know.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just in case anyone doesn't know (none / 0)

Actually, caucus states have NOT selected delegates yet. They will do so at their state convention.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just in case anyone doesn't know (none / 0)

On the other hand it does make the case that even if we only ran primaries Obama would still have a large lead.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI, FL (none / 0)

They also do no include any votes for Washington, or many of the other states that held caucuses..  They say that these contests are to be held at the state conventions and so forth, but it is pretty clear that those can be projected since they were chosen from the supporters of the candidate they were pledged to.  

That 37.5 figure is quite deceptive.  There are many delegates that have essentially been selected that are not in that count.

This is why I take all numbers from NYT with a grain of salt.  They do not come close to the totals reported by every other major media outlet.


by Why Not on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI, FL (none / 0)

The reason the NYT is different from all the others is that you picked the column that doesn't count delegates from caucus states that haven't made their final selections. If you go over a couple of columns, the difference is 118.5. (And that probably underestimates Obama's spread by about 10-20 delegates.)

You can try and find a number that makes you feel good but it's just postponing the day of reckoning.

And I agree with you that caucuses aren't the best way to select a nominee. Unfortunately, it's going to take some time to change that.


by kjblair2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI, FL (none / 0)

by about thirty delegates, I think - He's probably up by about 150 pledged delegates right now, once the Texas caucus results come in (although, apparently, they may not come in, weirdly)


by jlk7e on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good News (none / 0)

I sure sounds like we're going to have a primary in Florida and a caucus-plus in Michigan. That's a great solution, consistent with the rules and with Delaware and D.C. precedents.

Let the people speak.


by BBCWatcher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:28:00 PM EST

Re: Don't celebrate yet. (none / 0)

Potentially good news.  There is no resolution yet, and the possibility exists that Clinton will try to jamb this through which will fracture the party.


by upper left on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

These guys are just not ready for prime time.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:34:13 PM EST

Re: Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

That mistake being.....


by goodnbad on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

obvious to anyone really paying attention that MI and FL are going to get a revote.

Obama seems to think he can stop this from happening, but that's just wishfull thinking. It's going to happen. The Democrats can simply not afford to disenfranchise that many voters in such important states. Not if they want to win in November.

So, he is going to stand tall on a losing cause and thereby allienate the voters in the MI and FL. Now that's just plain dumb.

The redo primaries are going to be held and he's already stumping against them. Simply incoherant. This guy is not ready.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

He's not against it, he's just saying that it's between the states and the DNC, Hillary's camp are the one's who are against any re-vote (they already voted) so perhaps you should aim your criticism the other way.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

Uh.. so you claim the article misrepresents the facts?

And punting that it is the DNC's problem is not very.. leaderlike.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Huge Mistake By The Obama Campaign (none / 0)

I don't here any plan from the Clinton camp about how to facilitate or fund this.


by rfahey22 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he's just saying they dont want to deal with it (none / 0)

they dont want to be a part of the negotiation, of course they will agree to it.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 2)

What on earth do you mean?

Let me decode this for you as well. Plouffe just said the Obama campaign is neutral on this question. In other words, they're fine with new contests.

What you may not understand fully is that the Obama campaign is perfectly content to live within the DNC's delegate selection rules. They have all along, and they will to the end. The reason is they're playing chess, not checkers. They understand that you don't change the rules mid-game, and any nomination won by violating that principle isn't worth a bucket of spit.

So if Florida and Michigan want to take their chances with the Credentials Committee, which will be controlled by a floor vote of the pledged delegates ex-Michigan/ex-Florida, they can. But they have always had the Delaware and D.C. precedent option available: to submit valid delegate selection plans to the DNC to hold Party-sanctioned contests that are not scheduled before the starting gun. They still have that option. And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm delighted those two states appear to be headed in that direction.

Obama has no objection to that. Those are the rules, and they'll play by the rules. They want to win by the rules. And that's just smart strategy not to mention the "right thing to do."

Now, fast forward and Florida and Michigan hold their contests. The most probable outcome is that the Party-sanctioned contests don't materially affect the pledged delegate situation. But having them vote in sanctioned contests -- with Obama's name on the ballot! -- cleans up a little mess, and that's good. It also builds lots of excitement and enthusiasm in those states in preparation for November, to help whichever candidate is the eventual nominee. And they go into the Convention with a likely pledged delegate lead, probably quite substantial, and the supers put Obama over the top. That's the most likely outcome.

But this is good news for Clinton, because it keeps the campaign going, it gives her a good chance at netting some delegates, it gives her nomination some credibility if she should win it on a pledged delegate plurality, and it adds time to the calendar so that there's more time for a miracle to occur for her in the campaign.

Really, I couldn't be happier. This is a wonderful bit of news for both campaigns and for the Party.


by BBCWatcher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

It's always useful to have someone explaining "What Obama Really Meant."  However, politics does not always center around decoded messages; sometimes the people take you at your word.  If voters in MI and FL perceive that Hillary is enthusiastic about a re-vote while Obama is trying to remain agnostic or, worse, weasel out of it, that only serves to help Hillary with those voters.

Maybe, as you say, it's "smart strategy" to remain neutral on the issue.  I'm not sure about that.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

Then we are in wild agreement. The only question I have is why Obama does not get out in front of this and say that he thinks it would be great if they had a revote. Maybe I'm missing something...


by MediaFreeze on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

I'll tell you why he doesn't want to get out in front of it.

Michigan wants their to be dem only, quick, short and dirty psudeo "firehouse" primary.

Florida is going to have their also be dem only with an additional rule of every voter having to have been registered to vote at the time of the original primary. No new stacking of the registrations, no indys and no repubs voting as "dems for a day."


by americanincanada on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The irony of a re-vote (none / 0)

Now, I'm in favor of a re-vote. I think it's the cleanest way out of this mess.

But I can't help but notice the irony here. FL and MI moved their primaries 'past the line of scrimmage in order to exert more influence in the primaries.

Then they got slapped down.

A re-vote late in the game would, strangely enough, give them the kind of influence they were going after all along. They would potentially be the states that select the candidate.

It's a strange, strange year.

by PhilFR on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:35:00 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

why don't both states just do a mail-in ballot? seems cheap and straight forward.


by OldCoastie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

We could contract it to OR to run it!

I can imagine the CNN coverage for the 3 weeks as they collect the ballots.


by hctb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Clinton should absolutley go for re-votes in FL, MI

Demographically these are CLINTON states!

Think of the senior citizen voters in FL, strong Jewish, Hispanic populations, plus in a revote Hillary won't have John Edwards taking 10-15 percent of the blue collar lower income vote.

Michigan outside of Detroit will be Clinton country as well. Hillary absolutley can rack up nice margins in those two states particularly if she can build some 'mo out of the present situation. Wins in FL and MI in revotes along with a PA win simply cannot be ignored by the supers.

Hillary can also frankly make this an issue: I stood up and fought for Florida and Michigan's delegates to be seated, I never took my name off your ballot etc etc and I would expect Senator Levin to join Stabenow in backing Hillary. Senator Nelson and most Florida Democratic leaders are already backing Hillary


by rossinatl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:09:49 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Check you math. They may be Clinton states but even making generous assumptions about vote margins, it's likely Clinton will have lower delegate margins in both states if they revoted.


by kjblair2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Sure beats winning by a count of zero to zero, which is the other option they may be left with.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FL yes, MI no (none / 0)

I lived in Michigan. It will be close there in a primary. You're forgetting Ann Arbor, which will go heavily for Barack Obama. I also suspect Grand Rapids will go with Obama, as will Oakland County (wealthy Detroit suburb). Clinton will win McComb, northern Michigan, and the white areas around Jackson, Battle Creek, Saginaw/Bay City and Kalamazoo. Obama will win Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint and black areas of Saginaw, Battle Creek, K-zoo and Benton Harbor. Also, southwest Michigan is not far from Chicago and has lots of cultural connections to it. Some of the central Michigan areas are more like Wisconsin - lily white and not particularly blue collar. In fact, you can get a sense of their support levels by looking at the January results. In a primary it will end up a tie. Michigan is not Ohio, folks. In fact, Michiganders HATE Ohioans, and all things Ohio. Michiganders believe that Ohioans are yahoos - even outside the context of football!  And there is no Appalachian region in Michigan. In a caucus, Obama will win by 10 percent.

FL is definitely strong pro-Clinton country. But by how much? Who knows.


by elrod on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Todd, Maybe You'll Want to Rephrase (1.66 / 3)

In your preamble to your update you write: "Can't really blame the Obama campaign for not wanting to play along."

That's caused some confusion here. What you really meant, I think, is that Team Obama doesn't want to interfere with the interaction between the DNC and the state parties in getting sanctioned delegate selection plans in place for new contests.

It's not that they don't want to "play along" with having sanctioned contests. Plouffe is simply declaring the campaign's neutrality. If Michigan and Florida do that, they're fine -- it's within the rules. If the states take their chances with the Credentials Committee (and an ultimate floor vote among pledged delegates), they're fine with that, too, since they likely control that vote and will wield it if they need to. That's within the rules, too.

After Texas and Ohio Clinton discovered the advantages of prolonging the campaign, so she's now (apparently) warmed up to the idea of not tilting at windmills and instead supporting sanctioned contests. Wise decision for her campaign.

And the state parties now understand the reality facing them, and they don't want to be the ones seen damaging the eventual nominee because they couldn't get their acts together. Plus Governor Crist (for his own reasons of course) broke the logjam. This was entirely predictable, though.

So we now add a real Florida primary and a real Michigan caucus-plus to the calendar, perhaps on a couple Saturdays in May. Wonderful news!


by BBCWatcher on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean's Statement On MI & FL (none / 0)

What's important is that the Florida Democratic chair said that one of the required criteria is for both candidates to agree on the plan. Obama doesn't have to agree to any of this.


by mecarr on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST

Re: Howard FL (none / 0)

Oh yes please let Obama publically screw over MI and FL Democrats. He really must care more about himself being the nominee than having any shot at being President


by rossinatl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard FL (none / 0)

He never said anything of the sort.  Let's not jump off a cliff here.


by rfahey22 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean's Statement (none / 0)


I'm surprised Michigan's gov would agree to a caucus.  Isn't Michigan a primary state?

A primary is much more democratic.  Ten times more voters come out for a primary than a caucus.  

Michigan voters themselves should determine if they prefer primary or caucus -- and I would think they would want a primary.


by moevaughn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:35:06 PM EST

<