MyDD :: 15%: Stiff FL and MI & Dems Lose The White House

15%: Stiff FL and MI & Dems Lose The White House - UPDATED

by MediaFreeze, Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM EST

If the Democrats do not revote Florida and Michigan John McCain will be the next President of the United States. The electoral votes of these two large swing states are critical to victory in the fall. Florida has 27 electoral college votes. Michigan has 17. That is 44 out of 538, a swing 88 votes, more than 15% of the total. It is a virtual certainty that these states will go to John McCain if we do not allow them to participate in the nomination process, so we are talking about a 15% handicap before we even start the race. This is like going into a fight with an even opponent with one hand tied behind your back.

It's even worse. Other voters all over the country will be turned off by the chaos and undemocratic practices of a Democratic Party. There will be some swing voter fallout against a party that nominates a candidate without including all the voters from all the states.

Right now, as everyone knows, furious discussions are underway about how to fix this problem. The options are to have a revote of some sort, or to stiff the delegations of FL and MI. The Clinton campaign is for a revote, and the Obama campaign wants to stiff FL and MI.

I know some will say that Obama has suggested the "compromise" that they split the delegations 50%-50%. This is essentially meaningless since it does not recognize the voters. It's almost an insult. That they have the nerve to even make this non-offer with a straight face is stunning.

I understand the Obama camp's calculus. They think that if FL and MI revote, at least Florida will go to Clinton. Michigan is a toss-up at this point, but they are very nervous about Clinton's momentum. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by a big margin, then goes on to win revotes in Michigan and Florida big, then it will be very hard for the party to not select her as the nominee. Winning most of the big states, and most of the critical swing states will be impossible to reject.

So Obama thinks that if he can run out the clock on the nominating process that his delegate lead will hold up and the party will have no choice but to nominate him. It is critical to recognize that this is a strategy that wins the battle, but ultimately lays the groundwork for losing the war. What good does it do to get the nomination if you do it in such a way as to insure your defeat in the general election.

The talking points are flying. One thing you hear a lot is, "FL and MI screwed up, It is their problem." This has a ring to it, but it could not be more wrong. It does not matter who screwed up. Many people have some responsibility including the Republican lead Florida Assembly as discussed in moevaughn's great diary from earlier today Florida Debacle, but it simply doesn't matter who's fault it is.

Again, the real question is: Who is responsible for fixing this mess? It doesn't matter who caused it. It is now the repsonsibility of the Democratic candiates for the office of President of the United States to fix it, and fix it fast. Whoever is our nominee has a responsibility to win the presidency. Both nominees have a responsibility to win the nomination in a manner that preserves their chance to beat John McCain. Obama's strategy to win the nomination virtually insures defeat. As such, it is a completely irresponsible strategy.

The very fact that at this stage Obama is trying to gain the nomination in a manner that results in the Democrats losing should trouble all Democrats. Supporters talk about Obama's vaunted leadership ability. Faced with the reality of the criticality of FL and MI to Democratic victory, how can it not be his responsibility to do this right? He is running for President of the United States and right now he is pursuing a strategy that will destroy the Democrat's chances to win in the fall if he gets the nomination this way. How is this not his responsibility? You don't get any points for being Democratic nominee. You have to win the Presidency too. The Democrats have to win in the fall.

Here is my plea to all of Obama's supporters. Talk to your candidate. Tell him that he has to agree to revote FL and MI. Tell him that he needs to do it, even if it hurts his chances in the Primary, because it preserves his opportunity to win the Presidency of the United States.

It is not too late yet, but if he keeps up his stalling and empty offers of 50-50 "compromises" he is going to back himself into a corner. He will lose support in these states as it becomes clear that he is trying to stiff them, while Clinton is arguing for a revote. He will have no choice but to pull out all the stops in his efforts to run out the clock. If he succeeds in stiffing MI and FL, they will be will be lost in November, and John McCain becomes President. If he fails and these states have a meaningful revote, they will be so angry at him that he will be clobbered in the revote, and Clinton becomes the nominee. The only road to the White House for Barack Obama is to get on the right side of this one. Agree to meaningful revotes and campaign there and win. It's the right thing to do. It's called leadership.

******************************************************

UPDATE: grassrootsorganizer has a comment below, that I think says it all:

the arrogance is stunning

Florida is a throw away now, "Mr and Mrs. Sixpack" in Michigan will vote Democratic regardless of how the state is treated. Wow.

Let's walk through the path to disenfranchisement, shall we? Let's assume the Michigan/Florida problem is not settled in a way that actually includes the will of the voters in Michigan -- say they aren't seated at all or the delegates are split 50/50.

I'm a typical Michigan voter and this story has been on the front page of the two major papers on and off for months. I'm at risk of losing my job, my wife has lost hers, I'm surrouding by "for sale" signs in my neighbors' lawns, all the politicians out there seem all so concerned about the ECONOMY but no one seems to give a wet rat's ass what the people of Michigan think.

Am I going to listen to my union? Hell no, they helped get me into this mess. Jennifer Granholm? Kwame Kilpatrick? What has a Democrat done for me lately?

Now here comes the Democratic Convention. Oh look! The entire country matters except for the people in my state and Florida. Our chairs are essentially empty. Awesome how voters in Guam got a say in this but not me...because the Democrats in my state tried to push our agenda to the forefront and the party shut us down in favor of the will of New Hampshire. So much for post-convention bump.

Nobody needs to worry about my problems, the national press and the Democratic contender have made it clear I'll vote Democratic no matter how I'm crapped on.

Yeah, watch me.

We must do better than this.

Poll

Votes: 21
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Florida, Michigan, Obama, Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 69 Comments :: Post a Comment

McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Unless there was major scandal.

by highgrade on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Exactly. Furthermore, explain why Obama wouldn't want Michigan to revote when he'd actually be on the ballot?

The argument right now is orbiting around money. It's sort of silly to hype up this issue. Almost as silly as the argument that Michigan's first primary should count as it is(without Obama on the ballot).

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

The arguement is not about money. They could easily find the money. The argument is about the Obama campaigns unwillingness to agree to any meaningful revote.

Also, McCain and Obama are polling equally in Michigan right now 45% McCain 46% Obama.

Stiff them and MI will go to McCain.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Um where do you see Obama unwilling to re-vote, there both for redo's of Michigan and Hillary's the one against redo-ing FL.

by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

No he's not. Obama is saying things like he want's to play by the rules and he is saying he'll do whatever the DNC and the states decide, but he has failed to agree to any plan for a meaningful revote, and he is trying to run out the clock.

The Clinton camp has called for revotes and offered up $15M from their backers. Here's what is going on:Revote: Clinton Camp Offers To Pony Up $15M, and there was more of the same this morning...

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Your spinning and spinning and spinning. It's not his responsibility to pay for the revote. If he has some large corporate donors like Clinton does and if they are willing to pay, I'm sure he won't stand in the way.

You have no proof at all that he does not want a revote. In fact, your claim stands in direct contrast to what he publicly says.

The only campaign that has already ruled out certain kinds of revotes (caucuses) and ANY revote in Florida is actually the Clinton campaign.

by marcotom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's more on the stalling... (none / 0)

The Democratic state party chair in Michigan says the Barack Obama campaign has rejected the idea of a "firehouse primary." The proposal would have included:

Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

On Obama's rejection:

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations," said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/8/1 13812/9819

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's more on the stalling... (none / 0)

Obama's campaign has denied that already. It's not true.

by marcotom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's more on the stalling... (none / 0)

Can you show me where and how they denied it.

I am willing to bet it's another fuzzy denial. Did they say they supported Ganholm's plan?

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

They're politicians who don't just want to win in the primary, but November too. Trust me. No one wants to drop 5-10 million. That's why they keep punting it around, from the states to the DNC to the campaigns.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

Do you really think that a candidate who not only told Michigan that there's no chance of their manufacturing jobs coming back; a candidate that is full bore in his support for NAFTA and other free trade agreements; and lastly one that has already told the American people that his economic/financial knowledge is limited to Greenspan's memoirs?

As much as Hillary and McCain want it to be true, the fact is that this election will be about the economy. I spend most of my time in the midwest (Illinois (not in play) and Ohio), and in all of the discussions that I have had in the last year, I can honestly say that I have yet to hear anyone talk about how scared s/he is about the next terrorist attack. People are losing their jobs by the thousands, their houses are being foreclosed on, and even if your house situation is alright you probably have several homes on your street that are in the process of foreclosure. The economy will be in worse shape in November then it is today. Once summer rolls around, prepare for our gas prices to be around $4 dollars a gallon. These are not circumstances in which a 72 yr old, quick tempered war monger is likely to win.

The only people that keep bringing up this idea that McCain is going to win Michigan if the delegates aren't seated are the people who think their candidate is going to benefit. Now, even though I do support Obama, I agree that we need to come up with SOMETHING - whether it is a revote or anything - but I don't think it will change many voter's minds once we reach November.

by highgrade on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Especially since he'd be at least a 50-50 shot to win MI (he'll lose Florida, though by less, but I think he'll either win MI or it will be an effective tie: see MO, TX, NM and other states that were 1-5% wins for either canidate, they don't help that much).

by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain couldn't win Michigan (none / 0)

Please explain your conviction that McCain could not win in Michigan?

The race in Michigan is usually closer than one might think. We have a very unpopular Democratic governor whose done nothing to stop the economic slide and a Democratic party leadership that screwed up the primary.

The Kilpatrick machine in Detroit is in shambles and this most visible Obama suppporter in the state is facing recall under eggregious scandal and misuse of taxpayer funds.

McCain first brought the economy to the forefront of the national presidential debate when campaigning in Michigan. He gave Romney a run for his money in a state with strong name recognition for Romney where the machine supported him and his campaign was highly visible since last summer.

Michigan voters blame Democrats for their economic problems, plain and simple. No state in the country is suffering as much as Michigan and it has for years under a Democratic governor. Now the national party wants to deny them a voice in the most historic presidential election in memory after Granholm and Debbie Dingell screwed this up for them.

Explain to me please your certainty that Michigan will vote Democratic in the fall?

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't Still FL and MI Barack! (none / 0)

Come on Barack, it's the only way. It is in your power to make meaningful revotes in these critical states a reality. That's your only path to the presidency.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:26:40 PM EST

Re: Don't Still FL and MI Barack! (none / 0)

Come on Hillary why are you opposed to redoing Florida.

by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Still FL and MI Barack! (none / 0)

She's not. That's just false.

The campaign has said they are willing to have a revote and said they can scrounge up $15M from their backers.

Revote: Clinton Camp Offers To Pony Up $15M

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI &amp (none / 0)

The notion that Democrats in MI and FL are going to be so angry at their legislatures for disenfranchising them that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee in November is ridiculous. The vast majority of people who vote in Democratic primaries are strong Democrats to begin with -- so the chances of them defecting is slim to none. Moreover, this is clearly the fault of their elected representatives -- not the DNC. If a similar thing had happened in Minnesota, I'd know exactly who to blame. Finally, we're unlikely to win FL anyway, nor do I really want to deal with their predictable bullshit, so they can go ahead and vote for McCain if they're so aggrieved.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI &amp (none / 0)

They may not vote for McCain, but you can bet that many won't vote. People in MI and FL are pretty frosted, and it only trakes a few of them to swing the state.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And they're angry at the state parties (none / 0)

People there know exactly who caused this mess. They don't want the January delegates sat.

by elrod on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

There is no carryover from this screwup to November. People in MI and FL know exactly who's at fault here: their own Democratic Parties that either jumped to the front of the line, or refused to protest when the GOP jumped to the front of the line and rejected DNC money to hold a separate primary later. Voters in Florida came out in January because of a ballot initiative that got wide play. They knew the Democratic contest was a beauty pageant and nothing else. And polling in Florida shows only about 25% want the delegates sat as they are.

A re-vote is ideal. But the money problem is real. The only cheap way to do it is either mail-in or caucus. Here's my solution then: mail-in for Florida and caucus for Michigan.

But the notion that this will matter in November is ludicrous. Democratic voters will have long forgotten this by the time the election in November rolls around.

by elrod on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

We are spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq. This is the richest nation on earth, and we can't find $30M dollars. The money issue is pure BS.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI &amp (none / 0)

I have traveled across Michigan in the past week and I can assure you the voters I have spoken with can vote for McCain. They are pissed and dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.

by orionwest on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And whose fault is that? (none / 0)

They can blame Jenny Granholm. But it's not Obama's or Hillary's fault. And they'll forget this crap in November. Michigan has, um, bigger problems on its plate than this.

by elrod on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And whose fault is that? (none / 0)

Pointing fingers isn't going to win the election for us in November. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The problem needs to be solved.

by LakersFan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And whose fault is that? (none / 0)

Ingnore the reality at your own peril. I assume they will remember in November when the Democratic Party asks for their votes. This also gives the Republicans great campaign ads!

by orionwest on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And whose fault is that? (none / 0)

Don't blame my governor alright. If Dean did his job and kept NH in line, this would have never happened.

by HillaryKnight08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain win? (none / 0)

agreed. McCain is also well-liked by Independents and conservative Dems. He could take it -- and Florida too.

I was visiting my mom in FL during primary season, and I know first hand how ripping mad regular Dem voters are at the DNC. I heard many saying sfter voting in the primary, if the DNC did not count their vote, they would either sit out the gen election or even vote for McCain.

by moevaughn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your comment is simply stunning, and (none / 0)

I don't mean that in a good way.

Finally, we're unlikely to win FL anyway, nor do I really want to deal with their predictable bullshit, so they can go ahead and vote for McCain if they're so aggrieved.

Unbelievable!

Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.

by Rumarhazzit on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your comment is simply stunning, and (none / 0)

Unbelievable!

Naw, it's pretty believable. Florida has had two consecutive popular GOP governors, has a GOP-dominated legislature, and is home to numerous current and former military folks. Moreover, I'm not sure that Floridians are even capable of voting for their preferred candidate -- elections appear to be a wee bit too complicated for Floridians to handle. If I thought we could win the state, perhaps I'd have a different opinion. But to be perfectly honest, I'd much prefer to win the presidency without having to rely on Florida and Ohios' ability to get their shit together.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI & (none / 0)

Democrats wont carry Florida in the general anyway. The state is trending too much to the right.

by Toddwell on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI & (none / 0)

I agree. Crist is very popular, and I don't think we picked up much in FL in 2006.

I also heard that there'll be a vote to ban gay marriage on the ballot but I haven't confirmed that. Anyone know?

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI &amp; (none / 0)

I hear there is a gay marriage ban on the ballot too, but I am unsure if it has been confirmed. I will simply be happy if we reelect Tim Mahoney in FL-16 and not lose any more ground in the legislature.

by Toddwell on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 15%: Stiff FL and MI &amp; (none / 0)

There were gains in the legislature last year, though there's a long way to go to get a Democratic majority. Still, the Republicans lost their supermajority in the House--here in Pinellas County we gained two Florida House seats and one Florida Senate (unfortunately balanced by a loss elsewhere) in 2006. The party is gaining credibility, and we have a full slate of credible candidates running for the state house, county commission, sheriff (there was no serious Democrat running for sheriff in 2004, so "Bubba the Love Sponge" was able to buy his way onto the ballot as the Democratic nominee...that was the pits. But it's different now, there has been a string of Democratic victories in special elections...this is absolutely the wrong time to give up on Florida (not that there's a right time to give up the fourth largest state). Any 50-state strategy that tosses Florida (or Michigan) out the window is not truly a 50-state strategy.

by Alice in Florida on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

where are you getting this from (1.00 / 1)

he says a revote is great, he wants it to happen. you're just making shit up, Clinton is the one that is refusing options (caucuses). Obama has said everything is good with him, he's not scared of elections, seeing as he's won 29 of them so far.

BHO/HRC 08

by omar little on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:43:05 PM EST

Re: where are you getting this from (none / 0)

show me where he has agreed to a meaningful revote

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sunday's Chicago Tribune (none / 0)

Here's a syndicated copy:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic /news/articles/0308wyoming-ON1.html

Here's the relevant part of the article:

[Obama campaign manager David] Plouffe disputed a report in Saturday's Detroit Free Press that said Obama's campaign told the state's top party official that it would not accept Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's idea of a party sponsored primary.

"That report was not accurate," he said. "We have abided by the DNC rules to this date and will continue to abide by them. So, if there is a remedy that the DNC and state parties agree to, that meets the rules . . . we will abide by those."

But Plouffe said he does not think the two campaigns should be involved with the negotiations.

"If there is a re-vote approved by the DNC, obviously we're going to abide by that," he said. "We are not going to pick and choose what kind of contest is appropriate to us. We would like resolution of this and we'd like resolution of this quickly . . . so that we have some certainty of what the nomination fight is going to look like."

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly Plouffe is stalling... (none / 0)

But Plouffe said he does not think the two campaigns should be involved with the negotiations.

If the campaign is not involved in the debate, it is certain that they won't come to an agreement. So, it is a circular arguement, the intent of which is to stall and run out the clock while looking reasonable. But it is a ploy. The longer this goes on the more transparent the Obama strategy is becoming.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly Plouffe is stalling... (none / 0)

Why would the campaigns have anything whatsoever to do with this? They'd only get in the way and slow down any resolution.

This is a DNC-state party dispute, nothing more, nothing less. Both campaigns should observe but stay out of the way. Delaware and DC figured it out in cycles past, and Michigan and Florida will do so again this cycle.

Which do you think is easier: resolving a bilateral dispute or resolving a 4-party dispute? It's the former, and that should be obvious. The Clinton campaign should get the hell out of the way, and so should the Obama campaign.

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly Plouffe is stalling... (none / 0)

Not true... them coming together and really agreeing to a revote is the only thing that is stopping it from happening.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he has stated it very clearly (none / 0)

he will do whatever the DNC and the state parties decide, Daschle was very clear on MTP this morning. He wanted a revote, he said the Obama people are up for anything besides just seating them as is.

BHO/HRC 08

by omar little on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he has stated it very clearly (none / 0)

Anything that follows the DNC's rules, to be explicit.

Let me give an example. There's been some scattered talk that Florida and Michigan would submit delegate selection plans that only permitted voters who participated in the January beauty contests to participate in the later sanctioned contests. That sort of plan would violate DNC rules and would be (correctly) rejected. Also, winner-take-all contests are expressly forbidden. Neither state party can get "cute" here.

But the DNC otherwise gives states wide latitude for how they structure their contests. All Michigan and Florida have to do is read the rules and, like 48 other states, submit plans that follow the rules to the DNC for approval. Howard Dean's fax line is open, waiting to receive their plans. Oh, one other thing: they must finish their contests on or before June 7, 2008. That means they have to submit new plans well in advance of that date. The clock is ticking.

There's nothing either campaign can or should do to interfere to slow down this process. If they did, it would be like a football team in the middle of the Superbowl trying to get the NFL and the referees to agree that it should actually be 12 yards, not 10, to get a first down. The best thing in the world both the Clinton and Obama campaigns can do is to stay the hell out of the way and let the DNC and state parties figure it out.

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly... (none / 0)

...more evidence:

The Democratic state party chair in Michigan says the Barack Obama campaign has rejected the idea of a "firehouse primary." The proposal would have included:

Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

On Obama's rejection:

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations," said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/8/1 13812/9819

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly... (none / 0)

And David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said that report is not correct. So we have he-said, he-said.

The process is clear: the Michigan Democratic Party, lead by Mark Brewer, has only two options. One of those options is to submit a delegate selection plan to the DNC. Howard Dean is waiting for a copy; the lines are open.

I have no idea why Brewer apparently thinks it's either campaign's role to interfere.

As for the "serious financial and logistical problems" Brewer talks about, there are 48 other state party chairmen that have very little sympathy right now. I'm quite familiar with state party operations, and their one big job is to handle primaries and caucuses (and state party conventions). Those are the heart and lungs functions of any state party. And frankly, if they can't manage those basic functions, the state party leadership is incompetent.

What probably happened here, reading between the lines, is that Brewer tried to hit up the Obama campaign for some money (which he calls "approval"). The Obama campaign told him to pound sand (politely), and the Clinton campaign didn't offer enough (or any) dough. It has been reported that the DNC offered Michigan and Florida a unique time-limited subsidy for running their contests if they needed extra help. (Time-limited meaning that the offer came with a deadline.) The DNC is not without sympathy and constructive efforts to assist. Michigan and Florida both refused, so now they're on their own. And given the contributions to their local state economies if they did hold DNC-sanctioned contests, the pleas of poverty are quite hard to believe.

So now the DNC allegedly cancelled Michigan's block of hotel rooms in Denver. So does Mark Brewer want to play, or does he want to take his ball and sulk in a corner? It's up to him and the rest of the state party leadership.

Sorry to be so blunt here, but it really is up to the DNC and state parties to decide, and the state parties have certain responsibilities they must fulfill. The DNC under Howard Dean's leadership has been extremely generous to the state parties, like no past chairman in recent memory, with the "50 State Project." The state parties have incredible autonomy in the Democratic Party, but one thing they must do is run decent presidential primaries and caucuses. And 48 states, DC, Democrats Abroad, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico all managed (or will manage) quite well. Chairman Dean is a very patient man, and he would be very happy to receive delegate selection plans from these two states. But if the state party chairmen think it's someone else's burden, they're sadly mistaken.

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly... (none / 0)

Wrong wrong wrong...

So many times in business, I've brokered squabbles between various departments. We are not going to make the deadline because of THEM. We'll boys and girls, we are not going to make the dealine because of us, and if we don't make the deadline, we won't get paid. Stop pointing the finger Barack and get it done. That is leadership.

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (none / 0)

your business experience is irrelevant, politicians have no place deciding the method in which they will hold elections.

you don't think the candidates funding the election is, I dont know, a bit of a conflict of interest?

it ain't barack's job to get it done. he is open to all solutions and will gladly campaign, because unlike his opponent, his numbers actually go up when voters get to know him more.

ps. BBCwatcher owned you.

BHO/HRC 08

by omar little on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly... (none / 0)

...more evidence:

The Democratic state party chair in Michigan says the Barack Obama campaign has rejected the idea of a "firehouse primary." The proposal would have included:

Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

On Obama's rejection:

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations," said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/8/1 13812/9819

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly... (none / 0)

...sorry double post

But it's a good one. As this week unfolds, we will see more attempts at stalling by the Obama people. This is a dumb strategy, and it will backfire. That's my prediction.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Transparent? (none / 0)

The longer this goes on the more transparent the Obama strategy is becoming.

Transparent? You mean like Hillary Clinton's DEEP concern for the voters of Florida and Michigan that conveniently manifested itself and after she fell behind by 150 delegates despite the fact that she and Harold Ickes had agreed with the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates? You may disagree with it, but it's well within Obama's ability to refuse a re-vote and seat the delegations 50-50 after taking control of the credentials committee. You may not like it, but it's well within the established rules.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:24:52 PM EST

My point is... (none / 0)

...none of that matters now.

If we stiff MI and FL and as a result we lose. We lose.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point is... (none / 0)

...none of that matters now.

If we stiff MI and FL and as a result we lose. We lose.

Evidence? Or am I simply supposed to take your word for it? Because I have a really hard time believing that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee because of some arcane party spat 10 months prior that resulted in the Michigan primary not counting. You're greatly exaggerating the importance of this to the average Michigan voter.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point is... (none / 0)

...certainly not all of them, but many are pissed and will stay home, enough to tip these swing states in a close election.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point is... (none / 0)

On top of that. We need to build organization in these states. Active Party people will be dissillusioned and it will be harder to mount a ground game. It is a receipe for disaster.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point is... (none / 0)

...certainly not all of them, but many are pissed and will stay home, enough to tip these swing states in a close election.

Again, evidence?

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the arrogance is stunning (2.00 / 2)

Florida is a throw away now, "Mr and Mrs. Sixpack" in Michigan will vote Democratic regardless of how the state is treated. Wow.

Let's walk through the path to disenfranchisement, shall we? Let's assume the Michigan/Florida problem is not settled in a way that actually includes the will of the voters in Michigan -- say they aren't seated at all or the delegates are split 50/50.

I'm a typical Michigan voter and this story has been on the front page of the two major papers on and off for months. I'm at risk of losing my job, my wife has lost hers, I'm surrouding by "for sale" signs in my neighbors' lawns, all the politicians out there seem all so concerned about the ECONOMY but no one seems to give a wet rat's ass what the people of Michigan think.

Am I going to listen to my union? Hell no, they helped get me into this mess. Jennifer Granholm? Kwame Kilpatrick? What has a Democrat done for me lately?

Now here comes the Democratic Convention. Oh look! The entire country matters except for the people in my state and Florida. Our chairs are essentially empty. Awesome how voters in Guam got a say in this but not me...because the Democrats in my state tried to push our agenda to the forefront and the party shut us down in favor of the will of New Hampshire. So much for post-convention bump.

Nobody needs to worry about my problems, the national press and the Democratic contender have made it clear I'll vote Democratic no matter how I'm crapped on.

Yeah, watch me.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM EST

Re: the arrogance is stunning (none / 0)

I'm certain that Governor Granholm's moving up the primary were well intentioned.

I just don't know why MI and FL were punished, but NH and IO weren't.

by HillaryKnight08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the arrogance is stunning (none / 0)

Florida is a throw away now...

Realistically, yes. Remember 2004, when John Kerry heavily contested Florida? Yeah, I don't either -- and it's more Republican now than it was then. With Mr. 70% Approval campaigning with John McCain (or possibly on the ticket), I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell.

"Mr and Mrs. Sixpack" in Michigan will vote Democratic regardless of how the state is treated. Wow.

I certainly didn't say that -- my point was that only hardcore political junkies -- those that are likely to support their party's nominee regardless -- are likely to know or even care about the decision. And for the record, Michigan wasn't mistreated -- it chose to break the rules and was punished for it.

I'm a typical Michigan voter and this story has been on the front page of the two major papers on and off for months. I'm at risk of losing my job, my wife has lost hers, I'm surrouding by "for sale" signs in my neighbors' lawns, all the politicians out there seem all so concerned about the ECONOMY but no one seems to give a wet rat's ass what the people of Michigan think.

I think a lot folks care what the people of Michigan think -- and I think we should implement a national re-training program to help Michigan's economy. However, you folks also need to take responsibility for your own problems. The American automotive industry has been in slow decline for more than 30 years now. What has Michigan done to encourage economic diversification and re-training?

Am I going to listen to my union? Hell no, they helped get me into this mess.

How did they help get you into this mess -- by insisting on higher wages than comparable workers in China and Mexico receive? You do understand that, per John McCain, there's absolutely no way to save jobs than can be done for a fraction of the cost in Southeast Asia and Latin America, correct?

What has a Democrat done for me lately?

What have you done for the Democratic Party, your state, and your country?

...because the Democrats in my state tried to push our agenda to the forefront and the party shut us down in favor of the will of New Hampshire.

So, by this logic, we should all be able to move our primaries forward to push our agendas to the forefront, correct? Or is Michigan more equal than other states?

Nobody needs to worry about my problems...

Well, the government's going to help you, but you're going to have to solve a lot of them yourself.

...the national press and the Democratic contender have made it clear I'll vote Democratic no matter how I'm crapped on.

Yeah, watch me.

You can always vote for John McCain if you think his leadership will be better for Michigan's economy. To vote for McCain because you feel slighted that your own legislature disenfranchised you, however, is a bit childish and will likely only worsen the economic situation that you claim to be so concerned about. Such a course of action, as measured in its degree of superficiality, is akin to Ohio voters choosing Bush over Kerry because of gay marriage.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the arrogance is stunning (none / 0)

Is this the narrative of hope and change that you plan to bring to the general election? It does not seem like a winner to me.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the arrogance is stunning (2.00 / 1)

To get clear here, I was speaking in the voice of the theoretical "Mr and Mrs Joe Sixpack" Michigan voter.

First off I think you are dead wrong that only "political junkies" will know or care about the decision. Stories about the Michigan vote and seating the delegates are front page news. Half a million voters are one hell of alot of "political junkies" for any state. And those half a million voters went out in the cold with nothing else on the ballot, knowing their vote might not count, to have their votes heard anywhere. Think they don't care? Think again.

And I think you underestimate the investment those who didn't vote have in this decision to seat the delegates. It's felt and seen by a significant chunk of the electorate or it wouldn't be front page news.

We folks need to "take responsibility for our own problems"? That's a fantastic idea, thanks for the suggestion. The state government has busted hump, as have the unions and the educational system top to bottom to "diversify", retrain and attract new industries. It's not like everyone in Michigan works on the line at GM, for cripes sake. But when your biggest employers go down with pneumonia the entire economy gets sick. And as long as healthcare costs are adding a couple grand to the cost of every American made car they aren't going to get well any time soon.

Again, speaking in the voice of the average Michigan voter, what have the unions done for the state? Driven up the cost of public education through the roof? Buried the Big Three in retirement costs? Discouraged new businesses from locating here? Sure everyone wants to be in a union but for the 75% of the population not in one it sure can seem like the unions are drilling holes in the bottom of Michigan's boat.

Look back over primary news coverage and you will see what I know to be true -- no one NO ONE was talking about the economy until the week or so coming into the Michigan primary. Sure, it coincided with alot of bad national economic news. But it was the GOP, particularly John McCain, campaigning in Michigan that pushed the economy to the number one talking point on the campaign trail.

Your logic ignores the fact that while the rest of the country is floundering, voters in Michigan are drowning and have been for years while the economy was supposedly healthy everywhere else.

This diary is about the potential loss of Michigan and Florida in the fall. I'm asking the question, just how sure are you and based on what are you assuming Michigan will go blue in the fall? It doesn't matter how I will vote, it matters how Michigan will vote because last time I looked you don't have 17 electoral votes to throw away. (especially if you've decided Florida isn't worth the effort either)

Michigan voters will have no more faith in some Democratic economic turn around than they will in the GOP. Speaking again from the perspective of the Reagan Democrat and the working class voter, we've had seven years of Democratic state leadership that accomplished next to nothing, two Democratic senators who brought nothing home and a state Democratic party that screwed up and left us out of the decision making. Now we are looking at a national party that doesn't seem to give a damn and a front-runner who doesn't seem to want our voices heard either.

Okay, so maybe John McCain isn't our best choice. So maybe, if I'm the typical Michigander who normally puts the Democrat over the top in Michigan I stay home in November. I don't knock on doors. I don't talk it up at work. Maybe I don't give a damn and let the DeVos GOP and Grand Rapids decide for me. Maybe after beig ignored by Washington for eight years I figure it doesn't make any difference who's in Washington ignoring me.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the arrogance is stunning (none / 0)

Thank you for commenting. I think that you bring the entire issue I've been trying to raise succinctly into focus. I'm adding your comment as an update. Hope that's OK.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stiff FL and MI (none / 0)

It's awfully disturbing to read the comments of some Obama supporters, who just over and over essentially dis our country's voters. Not only dis in the sense of dis-enfranchise, but also dis in the sense of put down. They don't seem to have much respect for the citizens' right to vote in a democracy.

How is the great Uniter going to bring together Democrats, let alone the whole country, with supporters like this in his fold?

by moevaughn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:17:16 PM EST

Disturbing: Floridians lack of seriousness (1.00 / 1)

It's awfully disturbing to read the comments of some Obama supporters, who just over and over essentially dis our country's voters.

Well, at least with Obama, it's his supporters, not the candidate himself. Evidently, Hillary Clinton doesn't care about you if you don't live in a giant blue-state on the coast. She'll settle for 50+1.

Not only dis in the sense of dis-enfranchise, but also dis in the sense of put down. They don't seem to have much respect for the citizens' right to vote in a democracy.

Once again, for the record, Florida and Michigan both knowingly disenfranchised themselves. Should we should all feel sorry for them because their knuckle-headed representatives attempted to budge in line and got called on their bluff? I certainly don't. Now, I respect the folks in Michigan because they otherwise seem to be down-to-earth people who take their elections seriously. Florida, on the other hand, seems to be populated by frivolous buffoons who don't much care about running clean and fair election and who oftentimes can't be troubled to even vote (#43 in voter turn-out). Hell, if Floridians hadn't designed an idiotic butterfly ballot and if the folks in Palm Beach had actually troubled themselves to read it, George Bush would never have been elected president. So no, I don't have a lot of respect for Floridians, and no, it doesn't have anything to do with me being an Obama supporter. They don't take civic participation and elections very seriously in Florida, so I don't take them very seriously.

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM EST

Re: Disturbing: Floridians lack of seriousness (2.00 / 1)

I hope that Obama does not agree with the hateful ideas of some of his supporters like you, because those are some pretty unpleasant things to say about an entire state good Democrats. I'm at a loss how to respond.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Floridians lack of seriousness (none / 0)

my mother is a Florida voter and she and her friends do "take civic participation and elections very seriously."

your comment actually just made my point that O supporters are downright disrespectful of ordinary voting citizens. with such lack of respect, you and your leader will be going down the tube.

I'm glad you voted counted though! (assuming it did)

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the matter with Florida? (none / 0)

I hope that Obama does not agree with the hateful ideas of some of his supporters like you,

As I stated before, this is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with my support for Obama -- so quit attempting to tie it to my preferred candidate. Nor is it hateful. It's simply a generalization that appears to be true. Now, as an aggregate, I certainly respect Floridians more than I respect Serbians, but by the same token, I also respect Floridians a lot less than Michiganders, Washingtonians, Massachusetts(ers)(or whatever they call themselves), Connecticut-ans, etc.

...because those are some pretty unpleasant things to say about an entire state good Democrats. I'm at a loss how to respond.

Well, perhaps if Florida had more good Democrats, it wouldn't continually find itself embroiled in electoral messes. I know there are a lot of good people and good Democrats in Florida, but as a whole, the state doesn't take elections or civic participation very seriously -- and therefore, I respect Florida a lot less than I respect Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Delaware, etc. Even the residents of Wyoming, a state that votes almost uniformly Republican, run clean and fair elections and manage to show up at the polls despite the fact that the elections are almost never close. What's wrong with Florida?

by RP McMurphy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:09:25 PM EST

Generalizations (none / 0)

I noticed how we can't (and shouldn't) make generalization about all Obama voters, (latte drinking Deaniacs and college students out of touch with the realities of the majority of Americans) but we can somehow generalize fairly about entire STATES full of people.

Individual voters in Michigan and Florida had NOTHING to say about moving up their primaries. No one asked us. And yet somehow we get glomped up together as "Michigan" or "Florida" as if our collective will got us to this place and a state can somehow be at "fault".

For two months I've been listening to alot of whining about how the Democrats in red states matter -- Oh! those 20,000 Democrats in Idaho must MATTER but 500,000 Democrats in Michigan and 1.5 million in Florida don't. How in the FRICK does that logic work?

Michigan Democrats have been busting their tails for decades to keep this state blue with a very narrow margain. Want to hate a whole stateful of Democrats? what have Democrats in red states done to turn their states blue? How about all those Democrats in Florida that fought like dogs in 2000 to have their votes counted?

I have GOT to see this strategy for winning in November without Florida and Michigan...want to throw Ohio in there too? Just to make it interesting? Is the plan to have Kansas, Idaho, Vermont and Nebraska voter go blue and count three times because it's so damn cool they turned blue?

Oh, I know, we are planning to take Texas.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST

Mostly Agree (none / 0)

It's the Michigan and Florida state parties that screwed up. In Michigan specifically it was Jennifer Granholm -- let's assign blame where due. Her own party's legislators made at least some effort to stop her from violating DNC rules.

As I said upthread, and as Chairman Dean has said many times, he's eager to receive the states' new delegate selection plans. The lines are open, and the DNC even publishes a helpful rulebook so that they know how to write their plans. They can be caucuses, they can be primaries, they can be some of both (Texas), they can be mail-in (Oregon), they can be Internet (Democrats Abroad). They can have early voting or single-hour voting (Iowa). There is lots of flexibility.

They cannot be before February 5th or after June 7th in any way, including participation contingent on any contest outside those dates. They cannot award delegates in a "winner-take-all" contest: delegate allotments must be proportional according to specific DNC rules.

Michigan and/or Florida could even photocopy a delegate selection plan from another state, change a couple words and dates, and send that in. It'd get approved. It's easy.

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mostly Agree (none / 0)

So long as the Obama campaign does not set up roadblocks.

We shall see.

by MediaFreeze on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mostly Agree (none / 0)

What roadblocks could those be? It's between the DNC and the state parties. The state parties haven't submitted delegate selection plans, so there's nothing to block even if the Obama campaign wanted to try to meddle. (Which they don't.)

by BBCWatcher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Generalizations (none / 0)

I noticed how we can't (and shouldn't) make generalization about all Obama voters, (latte drinking Deaniacs and college students out of touch with the realities of the majority of Americans) but we can somehow generalize fairly about entire STATES full of people.

As long as it's accurate, you can make any sort of generalization you like. Are Obama supporters more likely to be college-educated latte-sippers? You bet. Does every Obama supporter fit this profile? Absolutely not. Obama wins a lot of salt-of -the-earth, working-class Midwesterners and Westerners as well. And considering that Hillary has won California and much of New England, she clearly has a lot of college-educated, latte-sipping supporters as well.

Individual voters in Michigan and Florida had NOTHING to say about moving up their primaries. No one asked us. And yet somehow we get glomped up together as "Michigan" or "Florida" as if our collective will got us to this place and a state can somehow be at "fault".

The United States is a federal republic. You elect representatives to represent your views in government. You are responsible for the people you elect. It'd be as if I claimed that the American people weren't responsible for the War in Iraq -- it was our damn elected representatives who started it!

For two months I've been listening to alot of whining about how the Democrats in red states matter -- Oh! those 20,000 Democrats in Idaho must MATTER but 500,000 Democrats in Michigan and 1.5 million in Florida don't. How in the FRICK does that logic work?

Real simple, really. The Democrats in Idaho had a legitimate election because their elected representatives chose to abide by the rules. Michigan and Florida may have a chance for a redo -- paid for by the citizens of both states -- but there's no way in hell their original results are going to be counted. And I've got news for you: Florida is a "red state."

Michigan Democrats have been busting their tails for decades to keep this state blue with a very narrow margain.

Good, I'm glad. We've been busting our asses in Minnesota, too.

Want to hate a whole stateful of Democrats? what have Democrats in red states done to turn their states blue? How about all those Democrats in Florida that fought like dogs in 2000 to have their votes counted?

Listen, I'm not minimizing the contributions of Florida Democrats nor am I suggesting that they stop fighting. I am, however, blaming the incompetence of some Florida Democrats for giving us Bush and screwing up the Democratic primary process. I'm also suggesting that they do something to drastically alter the political culture of their state. In 2000, in the closest presidential election the state of Florida has ever had, 48.3% of Floridians bothered to vote. I think that's a good illustration of how seriously the state of Florida takes elections and a telling insight into the source of Florida's continual political dysfunction.

I have GOT to see this strategy for winning in November without Florida and Michigan...want to throw Ohio in there too? Just to make it interesting? Is the plan to have Kansas, Idaho, Vermont and Nebraska voter go blue and count three times because it's so damn cool they turned blue?

Oh, we'll definitely need Michigan and Ohio, and I think they're both well within reach for the Democratic nominee. Idaho probably isn't a possibility, Kansas and Nebraska could both go Democratic in a landslide, and Vermont is a given.

by RP McMurphy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.