What Will Happen To Florida And Michigan?

It remains to be seen whether the gamble made by the Democratic Party officials in Michigan and Florida will pay off. Viewed through one lens, the delegate penalties were a tactical boon to Barack Obama’s campaign, giving him an excuse not to campaign in two major states whose demographics were more favorable to other candidates.

But in Florida last Tuesday, more than 1.5 million Democrats voted, and only Hillary Clinton flew down to accept a “victory.” The DNC’s credentials committee meets this summer, probably in July, and it is not clear which candidate’s representatives will be in control: the committee’s seats are allocated through a formula linked to the candidate’s performances in the states. If the committee winds up being controlled by Hillary Clinton – if, that is, she has a delegate lead in July, the Florida and Michigan delegations will be credentialed.

But if Barack Obama controls the credentials committee, and his committee is given the opportunity to deny Hillary Clinton delegates from Michigan and Florida that could put her over the top – that’s his prerogative.

But But -- here is what might happen instead.

The DNC will sanction new contests, probably caucuses.

The Clinton will protest vociferously. Caucus? CAUCUS?

There will be a big debate.

The outcome is in doubt.

(Yes, this is all legal. Rick Hasen explains why.)

Comments

I don't see FL and MI being seated for one reason - NH. They are furious that Clinton has been saying she won those states, and even went to accept the win - they feel they have been double-crossed, and with good reason. Even though NH voted for Clinton, they will not allow FL and MI to be seated.

Posted by Josh | February 6, 2008 12:05 PM

You may be right about caucuses. But if that doesn't happen my hugely uneducated guess is that we'll be looking at one of two scenarios. If Clinton leads in pledged delegates, the DNC members will vote with her to seat the full delegations and give her the victory. If Obama leads in pledged delegates, the DNC members will vote with him to seat a small percentage of the Michigan and Florida delegates, but not enough to give Clinton the nomination.

Posted by Hatch | February 6, 2008 12:09 PM

Caucus in Fla? A definite advantage for the youth vote vis a vis the wheel chair crowd. Caucus-mail in ballot hybrid?

Posted by drubs | February 6, 2008 12:15 PM

Why is caucus such a dirty word now? It takes a lot of grass roots activist support that can't just be bought to bring out a caucus vote.

I think its a great test of candidate strength in many ways and commitment and salesmanship.

But whatever, I just hope Obama controls the committee come July.

Posted by Rhoda | February 6, 2008 12:19 PM

Michigan not friendly to Obama? I think it is hard to justify that claim, Marc.

Posted by Anonymous | February 6, 2008 12:22 PM

This is probably the dumbest and naivest(?) of ideas but is it possible the DNC would (or could) split the delegates between those who were in still running at the time of those contests? Or is it still a matter of who is leading going into the Convention?

Posted by FRED | February 6, 2008 12:23 PM

Hillary should be elected no matter what it takes and no matter what the cost! I am woman, hear me ROAR!!

Men will rue the day when Hillary comes to power!

Posted by Susan | February 6, 2008 12:28 PM

So here's the big question: will the formula used for deciding the makeup of the credentials committee take into account the candidates' performances in FL and MI, or not???

Posted by Tractarian | February 6, 2008 12:28 PM

Just to add an element of recursion to the question-- would the Michigan and Florida delegations be allowed to elect members of the credentials committee? It looks like you don't need to be a delegate to be on the committee.

Posted by David | February 6, 2008 12:31 PM

I have no problem with the people of Florida and Michigan having their voices heard at the Convention this Summer. However, I do have a problem if it happens as based on the "beauty contests" that happened early this winter where none of the candidates had a chance to campaign there and talk to the voters, and in Michigan ONLY Clinton was on the ballot when earlier she said she would not be (a dirty trick, but we're used to it now).

So, with that being said, I would support a rescheduling of the primaries there and do a caucus at a mutually agreed upon date sometime in May or June which would give BOTH Clinton and Obama a chance to campaign there and would yield FAIR results that would allow the voices of Florida and Michigan to be heard in a FAIR way.

Posted by James | February 6, 2008 12:37 PM

I believe that if the delegations of MI and Fl are seated and strong armed through by the Clinton campaig, the Obama SUPPORTER'S MIGHT BOLT THE CONVENTION ESPECIALLY AA.

If this happens then the nomination might not be worth much. This will require very delicate negotiations where EVERYBODY THINKS IT WAS GIVEN A FAIR SHAKE

Susan your vociferous strong armed rhetoric will lead to the above scenario.

Posted by BDM | February 6, 2008 12:48 PM

No doubt that the delegates will get seated: FL is especially too important to leave to chance. HRCwill push hard for this while Obama cries foul. It'll be messy if the count really is close enough to go to the convention (still don't see that happening).

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 6, 2008 12:50 PM

All I know is that they will need FL & MI to win this election they better not tell them they have no say and discount there voice in the primary when there voice will be heard in the general election. They may not like the out come of not giving them a voice in the primary.

Posted by Roger | February 6, 2008 12:57 PM

I'm not sure I have a handle on this Michigan/Florida issue, maybe someone can fill in the blanks...?

My understanding is that the National Party told Michigan and Florida that their delegates would not be seated at the convention because they bumped their primaries so far forward on the calendar. Why isn't that the end of the story? Why is there so much talk that some other solution needs to be arrived at now, when the rules were laid down months ago? How could the national party tell Clinton and Obama and Edwards that those states wouldn't count, but then somehow undo the rules later? Seems to me that the party is playing with fire here.

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 6, 2008 12:59 PM

Speaking as a Michigan Democrat who was forced to vote "undecided" in January when I was not undecided, I am appalled at the situation we have been put in. We were effectively disenfranchised by the foolishness of others. There is only one fair solution, which is to run a second Democratic (and democratic!) primary in Michigan in June. I can't imagine what the reaction of Democratic voters here will be if either candidate plays politics with the results of the first primary. This is esp. true for the Clinton camp; by no stretch of the imagination can the phony results of the first "vote" be considered valid.

Posted by Herb | February 6, 2008 1:05 PM

There are only two solutions here.

1) Don't seat the delegates.
- Can you imagine seating Michigan based on the vote when only Clinton was on the ballot? And is seating Florida anything but bait and switch for Obama supporters there? I bet a lot stayed home because they thought it didn't matter. To say it then does matter is dirty pool.

2) Have new primaries/caucuses.
- This seems the most fair and the best solution. Florida and Michigan get to have their say and both candidates get to campaign in an arena with well-defined rules. Also, I don't think there's anything against the rules of the DNC for Florida and Michigan to just do this on their own.

If Hillary strong-arms friendly delegates from these sham elections onto the floor there's going to be serious problems for the Democratic party, unless she already leads in non-Super delegates, in which case it's just a nice gesture.

Posted by James in NJ | February 6, 2008 1:08 PM

"My understanding is that the National Party told Michigan and Florida that their delegates would not be seated at the convention because they bumped their primaries so far forward on the calendar. Why isn't that the end of the story?"

Because Hillary won the ensuing beauty contest primaries and then decided the rules needed to change to favor her.

Seriously - I can't believe this idea of counting MI and FL is even gaining any traction at all. The candidates weren't allowed to campaign in either state, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. All the things that define a political campaign - ads, ground game, GOTV, etc. were nonexistant in both states. How can you count them like a real contest?

Posted by LAW | February 6, 2008 1:08 PM

MI and FL should simply make a very clear threat. Seat us or else. If you don't seat us we shut it down for the general. The party machinery sits idle and we urge our voters not to vote the top of ticket.

Watch the Florida lawmakers in Congress scramble. The DNC would have no choice but to fold.

As for Clinton I'd make the threat. No do over. Pull a do over and all bets all off. I won't endorse, I won't campaign. I go back and quietly sit in the Senate and mind my beeswax, while Bill plays former Prez and says how swell BOTH the parties candidates are.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 6, 2008 1:23 PM

A do-over sounds great, but no way will they do caucuses. That's absurd.

Posted by Cal | February 6, 2008 1:24 PM

Cousin Vinnie et al,

Every time I hear this issue brought up, I find myself as dumbfounded as you folks. I just don't get it at all. I want Florida and Michigan to count, sure, I want their voices heard. But things got messy, a decision was made by the national party - that's it. I just can't grasp how people could consider valuing whatever happened in the no-contest vote that took place. Clinton can claim a symbolic victory - argue about it all you want - but actually counting it would be plainly absurd.

Posted by aeli | February 6, 2008 1:25 PM

It's transparently sheisty for the Clintons to argue for the Michigan delegates to be seated. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot! How is that position in any way defensible? Someone please explain it to me.
And while Obama and Edwards were on the ballot in Fla., they might as well not have been, considering they went up against the couple that has led the Democratic party for the last 15 years without having the luxury of setting foot in the state for some old-fashioned retail politics, which is both of their strong suits. I mean, let's get serious here!

Posted by Jen | February 6, 2008 1:26 PM

Dickie,

Didn't the voters in Michigan and Florida know what the deal was at the time they decided to go ahead with their early primaries? Seems to me they chose to marginalize themselves. Am I missing something here?

This feels to me like some kind of Republican retroactive immunity scam...

Posted by swamp thing | February 6, 2008 1:28 PM

LAWS, this isn't about Clinton. She is playing to the voters --- thats what pols do - when she says she wants their votes to count. But the fact is the back and forth wranglings between the FL and MI Democratic Parties and the DNC has never stopped, even after the DNC threw down its ruling (which at the time they didn't think would matter, because it wouldn't be close and FL and MI would be seated).

In short it is a giant bone headed error on the DNC's part. They should have done what the Republicans did and penalize them half their delegates and call it a day. The Republicans have the exact same issue and you will notice there is no squawking on their side.

As for a "do over" I am not sure that would even hold up in court. We don't do "do overs" in American elections.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | February 6, 2008 1:29 PM

Hey Dickie,

That sound like a great strategy for Clinton to win the nomination...

And lose in a landslide in the general.

Are you even kidding me? That plan would alienate a huge proportion of democrats who didn't vote for Clinton in every state including Michigan and Florida.

And if she can't even turn out her base, well, Pres. McCain it is.

Also, tell me again why holding a real and fair primary in Florida and Michigan would be a bad thing for the democratic party and the residents of that state?

Posted by James in NJ | February 6, 2008 1:33 PM

The problem with Clinton 'playing to the voters' and making the case that MI and FL ought to count is that it reveals the character flaws that so many of us notice in her. Imagine how much credibility she would gain if instead of trying to flim-flam the rules, she stood up and took a principled position that respected fairness. Her gamesmanship on this delegate issue is not only despicable, it is also costing her votes among fence-sitters.

Posted by zorro | February 6, 2008 1:35 PM

Why not just spit the delegates evenly between the two. no harm, no foul, and it gives the apperance to the voters that their voices were heard/counted.

True it give Obama delegates that at the moment shouldn't be in his stack, but you know what...It also gives Hillary delegates that shouldn't be in her stack..unless the DNC decides to to penalize Obama and Edwards honesty.

The folks that got screwed are the voters...the ones that did it were the local DC.

The ironic thing is that their voices would of mattered even more if they hadn't tried to move their primaries forward.

If they do seat Michigan before the convention and its used as a Kingmaker..you have my word I will become a republican for life...atleast there no games about what they do, its all out in front.

Posted by whoanow | February 6, 2008 1:57 PM

"MI and FL should simply make a very clear threat. Seat us or else. If you don't seat us we shut it down for the general. The party machinery sits idle and we urge our voters not to vote the top of ticket.
Watch the Florida lawmakers in Congress scramble. The DNC would have no choice but to fold.
As for Clinton I'd make the threat. No do over. Pull a do over and all bets all off. I won't endorse, I won't campaign. I go back and quietly sit in the Senate and mind my beeswax, while Bill plays former Prez and says how swell BOTH the parties candidates are."

If Clinton pulls anything near that, I will protest at the DNC convention and then vote for McCain out of spite. You might want to keep in mind that the people you're trying to play hardball with are the same people you would need to vote with you in 8 months.

The DNC was very clear with what the consequences would be if a state primary was moved up too early. Two states chose to ignore it, so they get the stated punishment. I'm not sure how this is debatable. In any case, the elections that did happen were complete shams and cannot count in any way, shape, or form.

Posted by LAW | February 6, 2008 1:57 PM

We're talking about a possible net advantage for HRC, among pledged delegates of .. *drum roll* ... 53.

MI had 128 dels. HRC beat Uncommitted (i.e. Obama) by 55-40%. A 15% margin = 20 delegates.

FL had 185 dels. HRC beat BHO 50-33%. A 17% margin = 33 dels.

While noting that Clinton might also get some more among the superdelegates in these states, and that the allocation may vary ... it is just a much smaller deal than people are hyperventilating about.

I'm sure Obama doesn't want to just give away 53+ delegates, but it's worth keeping it in perspective.

Posted by Stephen | February 6, 2008 2:05 PM

Stephan,

While I agree that 53 delegates is nothing to hyperventilating about, I like to keep character, honesty and integrity in perspective. Hillary trying to count these estimated 53 delegates when in the past she agreed to the rules...makes it hard for me to view her as a candidate that I would support or even vote for.

Posted by whoanow | February 6, 2008 2:16 PM

Speaking as a Florida Democrat, what happened in Florida is that the Republican-controlled FL legislature voted to change the primary date. In response, the Republican Party decided to have the primary here anyway, but the Democratic Party decided to disenfranchise Florida voters.

Why should Florida voters not be heard in the national convention? Wouldn't equal amounts of Clinton, Obama and Edwards (at the time) supporters have stayed home, thus ensuring a fair vote?

by the way, I'm not sure about Michigan, so I won't speak about their votes. But if, as it looks like, our votes could swing this towards Clinton, and Florida is a swing state in the national election, the Democratic Party should seat the FL delegates, at least.

Posted by Tom | February 6, 2008 2:26 PM

Speaking as a Florida Democrat, what happened in Florida is that the Republican-controlled FL legislature voted to change the primary date. In response, the Republican Party decided to have the primary here anyway, but the Democratic Party decided to disenfranchise Florida voters.

Why should Florida voters not be heard in the national convention? Wouldn't equal amounts of Clinton, Obama and Edwards (at the time) supporters have stayed home, thus ensuring a fair vote?

by the way, I'm not sure about Michigan, so I won't speak about their votes. But if, as it looks like, our votes could swing this towards Clinton, and Florida is a swing state in the national election, the Democratic Party should seat the FL delegates, at least.

Posted by Tom | February 6, 2008 2:27 PM

There's no guarantee that Uncommitted delegates will vote for Obama, though, right? After all, they're uncommitted-- meaning they can vote for anyone. Is the makeup of the Uncommitted slate really entirely Obama supporters? I imagine there must be some Edwards and others in there as well.

Posted by David | February 6, 2008 2:31 PM

Talk about a moral hazard. We are going to allow FL and MI to become kingmakers - not incidental to, but BECAUSE they violated the DNC rules in an attempt to increase their influence? Highly ironic.

I can't wait to see what the states try to pull next time, in order to suffer such "punishment".

Because the swing is only 53 regular delegates, as Stephen astutely pointed out, I can't help but think the DNC is going to do NOTHING proactive, and instead cross its fingers in hope that one candidate opens up a 54+ delegate lead by the final primaries.

Posted by biwah | February 6, 2008 2:43 PM

Re-schedule the primary elections in June

Give MI & FL the national spotlight. Let the votes fall where they may.

If Obama and Clinton held a kumbaya press conference to showcase their agreement on this party unity would be enhanced as we head into the general election.

Posted by Bill White | February 6, 2008 2:44 PM

whoanow,

Don't get me wrong. The only thing I dislike more than a person who will cheat to achieve a large profit, is someone who will cheat for a small gain.

"Si se puede!"

Posted by Stephen | February 6, 2008 2:48 PM

The idea of now setting up caucuses seems a bit farfetched. Is this being floated by anyone in a position of authority or did it just spring from the head of Marc Ambinder? A little attribution (even "a well-placed source") or acknowledgment that this is the author's own idea would be helpful.

Posted by Paul | February 6, 2008 2:50 PM

The Michigan Uncommitteds were a mix of Edwards & Obama supporters. IIRC, about 80% of them were Obamaniacs. Again, as I understand it, John Conyers & some other powerful Michigan Dem Obama-backers spearheaded the Uncommitted movement.

I think they can be viewed as effectively for Obama, or maybe 80-90% of them.

Posted by Stephen | February 6, 2008 2:52 PM

HRC not only needs to control the Credentials Committee to get MI and FL (as currently constituted) seated at the convention, she may need to do it without the votes of her delegates from IA, NH, NV, and SC, since those were the states that were supposed to be protected by the DNC.

Posted by PBS | February 6, 2008 2:55 PM

Dickie,

Other than flat assertion, tell me why we don't do "do-overs" in this country? From everything I've read, it's clearly allowed by DNC rules. Florida and Michigan could eve set it up all on their own.

Posted by James in NJ | February 6, 2008 2:56 PM

Dick Head Flatts is a mental midget obviously stung by the bad news coming out hourly on the Clintons. Too bad, Dick Head. Too bad.

Posted by Joe | February 6, 2008 3:06 PM

Funny how all the Obama supporters are calling Latino's racist because they did not vote for Obama. Even though we have voted for many African-Americans who now sit in various city's as Councilman, State Representatives, School District officials, etc..etc..
Let's talk about the intimidation that is going on in the Latino community with some African-Americans harassing people on the phone and beating up people for not voting for Obama.
Latinos voted for Hillary because we believe in her and know she will do whatever it takes to help our country get back on it's feet. Create jobs, health-care plan that makes sense, economy, etc..etc.
It's odd nobody is noting the fact that the majority of African-Americans "are" voting for Obama because he is a black candidate and not for what he can do or not do for the country. Only on his Hopes & Dreams speeches with nothing substantial being brought to the table.
As for those who are saying Hillary supporters are ignorant and don't have a clue, let me remind you Obama will need these votes to win the nomination.
Obama supporters are such mean spirited people and they have the nerve to advocate for a person who will supposedly bring unity among all parties.

Posted by Obama loses | February 6, 2008 4:07 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Trying to look at this as equitably as possible-

Changing the rules for victory or defeat, after the game has been played, is not fair. Everyone on the Dem side agreed in advance that the two states should not count, due to their advancing their primaries too early.

Obviously, the candidate who won in those states is going to argue vociferously that they should count. Particularly since she believes (and it might be true) that even if they HAD counted from the beginning, she would have won them anyway.

At the same time, I don't think that the scenario Marc outlines is fair, either. The two states should not have a second chance to vote, with the nomination on the line (and all of the voters knowing that it is...)

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 6, 2008 4:18 PM

But why should Florida Democrats be punished for what Florida Republicans did?

Republicans control the Legislature in FL- they are the ones who voted to change the date, which led to all of this.
So why should the DNC punish FL Democrats?
The RNC isn't punishing FL Republicans for "breaking" their rules?

Posted by Tom | February 6, 2008 4:30 PM

Why isn't that the end of the story? Why is there so much talk that some other solution needs to be arrived at now, when the rules were laid down months ago? How could the national party tell Clinton and Obama and Edwards that those states wouldn't count, but then somehow undo the rules later? Seems to me that the party is playing with fire here.

Sounds a lot like Al Gore'as apporach to winning Florida. "Rules are rule!" when they're in your favor, "It's not fair! I'm being disenfranchised! It's Bull Conner all over again!" when they're not.

There will be a big debate.

Me, I'm rooting for a lawsuit resulting in an emergency Supreme Court hearing.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 6, 2008 5:08 PM

The biggest risk of seating the FL & MI delegates is not how it will look to Obama supporters. It's how it will look to independents. Once the Republicans are done putting it into the context of Florida 2000, the message will be:

Changing the rules for victory or defeat, after the game has been played, is not fair.
But it is the Democrat way.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 6, 2008 5:19 PM

Useful (unofficial-but-reliable) delegate accounting for Michigan....

http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11174

Posted by jouster | February 6, 2008 5:26 PM

A do-over?
obama supporters are more silly than any group of voters since perot's.
really?
you folks feel wronged or out-smarted?
And to the silly voter who says a very small state like NH gets to stop florida and michigan from being seated? how spoiled is NH to go first all the time? And they voted for Hillary.
what you really mean is that some obama supporters in NH are really so mad they could hold their breath and and an well they don't know but they will do something.

a do-over? aren't you guys the same ones who said there was no crying in baseball?

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 6:33 PM

no do over. Fla. and MI knew the rules and deliberately violated the rules. Let em eat cake. no do over.

Posted by tina3219 | February 6, 2008 9:13 PM

Oh, come on, Michael C!
I know you Hillary people are enraged at the idea that someone smarter and more charismatic has thwarted her plans for an easy ride to the nomination, but if you actually turned your brain on for a minute, you'd realize that we are a country of laws, and just because Hillary is 'Hillary', she doesn't get to change the ones we all agreed to.
I know she feels this country 'owes' her the presidency, but that's not a reason to want to be president.

WE are the ones we've been waiting for, and Obama knows it!

Posted by yamanote | February 7, 2008 2:01 AM

The DNC has been talking to and trying to
convince the Michigan and Florida Democratic
Parties to do new Caucuses after the
Ohio and Texas Primaries(according to
what I have read).
The Democratic and Republican Parties
have the sole right to set rules
governing delegates to their conventions
according to the Supreme Court--which
allows them to order a revote or caucus
if necessary---better than a floor fight
on national tv that splits the party
in two and turns off America.

Michigan has a huge African-American vote
in Detroit and other cities which would
have voted for Obama. The Michigan Democrats
voted in very low numbers(less than 20%)
since the Primary had been "called off"
and the candidates were removed from the ballot
(except Hillary who reneged on the deal).

In a fair election, Obama would have won
Michigan handily(like South Carolina).
Remember, Jesse Jackson once won the
Michigan Democratic Primary.

Florida would have been a "toss up"
depending on the turnout(more older voters
turn out-advantage Clinton) or (more younger
voters turn out-advantage Obama).
Florida Democratic turnout was probably
suppressed also by the boycott of the
candidates and the "non primary" status.

If they do not revote and if the Hillary
gets her way and uses the "farce elections"
in Michigan and Florida
(and a few Super Delegates thrown in)
to secure the nomination, then
many Obama voters will be very angry and
think that "the fix is in".

Obama voters will go in droves to MCain
or they will not show up at all and fail to
vote which will give MCain the Presidency.

Democrats better get their act together
or you will get George Bush's third term
in November(and 100 years in Iraq).

Posted by Mark P | February 7, 2008 3:15 AM

I am a loyal democrat. I want us to beat the republicans. Sometimes, when I can, I give a small donation to the party. Usually I am emailed by Howard Dean. I remember Mr. Dean from when he was a populist candidate in the last election and I respect his judgment and integrity. Today, and I believe yesterday, and the day before as well Mr. Dean asked me to donate to help fight John McCain. I believe that this is a necessary battle that all democrats must participate in, from all states. I want to make this donation, I really do. That is why I am going to give Mr. Dean and the DNC my donation, but not without a condition that I believe should be met. I am going to tell the DNC that I will donate $10 (which is all I am able to at this time) only after the DNC has announced that the delegates from Florida and Michigan have been seated. I believe it is only fair that if we help the DNC, then the DNC should help us too. They say they want to run a 50 State campaign, right on their website. There website is http://www.democrats.org/. I think we should hold them to their promise to our party. So I call upon all of you who read my post to pass it along and email or call Mr. Dean and the DNC and pledge your donation to fight John McCain and the republican party, but only after the Florida and Michigan delegates have been seated. If you are able to donate more money, then pledge more money, (lots of money if you have it, it is for a good cause) but let him know that your donation comes with a price. Show him what it will cost him to cast aside these voters in Florida and Michigan who are loyal party members. These people's voices must be heard, they are part of our party and the future of our party. Donate to make sure that we are the party of all the people. Here is a link for you to tell Mr. Dean to seat the delegates if he wants your support.
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman
Or you can call the DNC number for problems or questions about contributions and tell them about you dilemma. That number is 877-336-7200.

Posted by blake | February 7, 2008 2:47 PM

i think it's outrageous (and typical, might i add) that the clinton campaign is trying to revalidate MI and FL's delegates for the simple reason that: 1. obama followed the rules and he shouldn't be penalized for that 2. HRC's election campain already agreed to the DNC's. 3. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI and many of his supporters did NOT come out to vote--to count that primary is both absurd, pathetic and worse of all, meaningless. 4. HRC might have won florida but it's impossible to say because obama didn't stump there, he placed almost no ads there, and again, many of his supporters decided not to vote. 5. it is exactly this win-at-all costs mentality that HRC has shown the entire nation that is turning off loyal dems and fueling this movement, and it is for this reason that she is going to lose this democratic nomination for the very same qualities that helped her husband won: voters are sick of it. 6. when you play dirty--the way HRC has--like the hard-hitting republicans do, you're just as bad as they are. 7. the only solution is to let MI and FL voters vote again, and this really scares the HRC crowd. and it should

Posted by jackson | February 8, 2008 4:15 AM

The DNC was very foolish to penalize Michigan and Floria voters in such a drastic way. These states are crucial in the general. They have created three possible out comes.
1. Mad Obama people
2. Mad Clinton people
3. Very, very mad Florida and Michigan voters
Not a good senerio for Democrates in any case.
I hope that the voters are not the ones screwed.

Obama people seem to be almost threatening that they will not vote if their man does not win. As an undecieded voter it turns me off big time. How can he be a uniter if his supporters threaten to tear apart the party?

I knew that the Dems would find a way to shoot themselves in the foot for 2008.

Posted by DeeLyn | February 12, 2008 2:33 PM

This is hilarious!

Disenfranchising the voters becuase I won again?

-- algore

Posted by AL | February 13, 2008 11:55 AM

DeeLyn I cound not agree with you more, Obama is basically daring the DNC to seat Florida and Mich, this goes against everything he speaks about, I don't trust him at all! Obama supporters believe that this is Hillary's fault when infact it's the DNC. All candidates agreed to not campaign, but that didn't stop Obama's people from running ads in Florida anyway! They claim it was an accident and now trying to blame Hillary for acknowledging the win in Florida! I don't trust him at all!

Posted by gab | February 15, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm from Michigan. My candidate wasn't on the ballot. I want the votes of Michigan and Florida to count but only if the delegates represent the voters! Right now, there is no earthly way of knowing what the will of the voters is. If a way can be found to let the candidates campaign here and take an honest vote, then I'm for it. But for the Clintons to claim that we already have that is a flat out lie. It makes me wonder what Mrs. Clinton was thinking when she decided to leave her name on the ballot even though she said it didn't matter because it didn't count anyway? Was she planning for something like this if she found she needed the votes? Would she care so much about us poor MI voters if she hadn't left her name on the ballot?

Posted by karela | February 23, 2008 12:52 PM

John Dean just said that Florida and Michigan will be seated.

This is May 9, 2008

Posted by Junebug | May 9, 2008 4:58 PM

John Dean just said that Florida and Michigan will be seated.

This is May 9, 2008

Posted by Junebug | May 9, 2008 4:58 PM

I can't understand this situation anymore. We, the people of this country have a right to be asked how this 2 States will be counted.
I think it is a real nice set up...FL and Mchg
have to be counted and the winner will get the delgegates.And we know who that is.
American people need to be aware and speak out.
I think somebody paid a lot of money to make this one candidate a winner.I am a woman and what is so wrong of having a woman President. She knows more then Obama and is more skilled to take that place at the White house.

Posted by Silvia | June 3, 2008 3:30 PM