A Revote In Florida and Michigan?

Last night, as he was celebrating victory in his generally ebullient manner, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAullife cryptically referred to the possibility of a re-vote in Michigan and Florida as part of the Clinton plan for victory in the primaries... something that echoed a trial balloon floated by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell earlier in the day.

What's going on here? Is Hillary Clinton contemplating a call for a revote in Michigan and Florida?

Clinton sources last night were mum, and Clinton herself would not go out on a limb during her round robbin interviews on the morning shows this a.m.

But the idea makes a certain amount of sense.

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

Potential complications: who's paying? A Florida primary would cost $10M (though I'd bet HRC's supporters could raise $10M in a moment's notice to pay for it), and Michigan Dems -- some of them -- might want a primary.

The most likely dates: mid-April or mid-June.

Stay tuned...

Comments

Of course they should re-vote, I've been saying that when the Clintons wanted to seat the delagates as-is and I'll say it now. You don't punish the voters because the pols moved their primary date, at least not with 100% disenfranchisement (the GOP went with a 50% penalty). There's an issue of right and wrong here that should come before political advantage, but that said, I think Obama would do just fine in a re-vote.

Posted by Rusty | March 5, 2008 7:12 AM

In Florida, Governor Crist has announced that he would support (and pay for) a 'revote' Democratic primary. While Clinton won the last one when no candidate was allowed to campaign, I doubt the results would be the same today. From what I have seen locally the grassroots movement of the Obama campaign has never stopped organizing. We expected this might happen and have been preparing. I am sure the Clinton campaign has been doing the same.

Posted by Michael Fisher | March 5, 2008 7:19 AM

More caucuses, please! /sarcasm

Chaos at Houston caucuses

Posted by dry_fish | March 5, 2008 7:22 AM

I don't see any reason for Obama to fear a re-vote, provided it includes both Florida and Michigan. I suspect Florida would favor Clinton, but only slightly, and Michigan would likely favor Obama by a greater margin, so together I would expect about a delegate wash.

I also suspect Clinton understands that, and would strongly prefer to get the delegations sat as they currently stand. The problem is that she probably also understands that she would not win a floor vote to that effect given how things are likely to stand. Further, I suspect that after the contests next week, it will become clear to even her most loyal supporters that Pennsylvania alone cannot save her. So, she is probably calculating that at least putting Michigan and Florida on the calendar would buy her more time with her most loyal supporters (the question is for what purpose, but I will not speculate on that here).

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 7:27 AM

I say revote. This long campaign has done enough to screw with party unity without adding pissed-off Florida and Michigan voters to the mix.

Posted by Persia | March 5, 2008 7:27 AM

A redo would be weird. There would be not only the money issue, but the logistics of setting up the vote would have to be surmounted. And then word would have to get out to the voters; for many this would be confusing.

As for Crist, he just wants to prolong the bloodletting among the Democratic candidate.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 7:28 AM

The best bet for all involved may be some sort of re-vote in early or mid-June. Basically, whomever has the the momentum at that point will win those contests which will provide a cover for superdelegates to weigh-in en masse on behalf of one candidate or the other.

Posted by dry_fish | March 5, 2008 7:29 AM

Clinton barely won Michigan against "undecided". Obama won't do well in Florida, but he'll probably do better than in the original primary. As an Obama supporter, I hope they both agree to do a re-vote. It's important that the whole country gets their say in the nomination process, no matter who wins.

Posted by Hazel | March 5, 2008 7:29 AM

Hillary Clinton has the same 3AM judgement as GWBush. ..that's the only thing we know about her.

I agree that Hillary didn't do so well in Michigan running against uncommitted.

The re-vote also has interesting ramifications; it would actually reward FL and MI with exaggerated importance in return for their violating DNC rules. It would also tend to de-emphasize those states that played by the rules.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 7:42 AM

Hillary promised to try and seat those delegations and so if they redo she has a profound advantage.
They should not be open primaries though.
The chance for mischief is too great (even though the candidates split the republican and independent crossovers in texas!)

Posted by Michael C. | March 5, 2008 7:49 AM

Are you kidding? A month ago, Obama's camp was at worst ambivilant about a revote and sometimes seemed to support it while Clinton was up in arms about even suggesting that we throw peoples' votes away. How can you write this without noting that, if Clinton shifts to push for a revote instead of the currently determined delegates, this is a huge turnaround in the rhetoric coming out of her campaign?

Posted by Zach | March 5, 2008 7:55 AM

Here they are trying to chnage the goal posts and the media is givinh them carte-blanche. They should release their tax files and who funded their library, everything should be on the table.
Obama campaign need to use surrogrates to destroy her credibility.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 8:02 AM

A "re-vote" would likely resolve this but would a re-vote be in accord with FL and MI state election laws? Here in AZ elections can only occur on specified dates -- the first Tuesdays in Feb., May, Sept., and Nov. There is the issue of the expense to the state governments, an expense bestowed upon them by the parties.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 5, 2008 8:14 AM

The State of Florida to grappling with a $500 million budget shortfall and they are talking about wasting $10 million in state funds on re-doing the Presidential Primary? Madness! Charlie Crist is an idiot.

Posted by Lee | March 5, 2008 8:27 AM

A re-vote would be a logistical nightmare. Would it be a re-vote for both parties or just for the Democrats? (I imagine Romney objecting to a Republican re-vote in MI.) Who would be allowed to vote? Would someone who already voted in the state's Republican primary (in January) be allowed to vote again in the Democratic primary? Would it be an open primary or a closed primary? Would the two states extend the deadline for voter registration? Would a snowbird who already voted in NY's primary be allowed to vote again in FL's primary?

Ugh. I shudder to think of the negotiations.

Posted by Dan | March 5, 2008 8:37 AM

She is scum, I will never vote for her, and the math is going to make it impossible for her to catch up in pledgd delegates even with Florida and Michigan. But ...

Winning a revote in those states (1) is her only chance to even get close in the delegate count, and (2) the arguments she and her partisans are making to try to justify a victory even if she loses the pledged delegate count, as odious as they are, (a) are more plausible the closer the delegate count becomes, and (b) are more plausible the more late victories she gets.

So yeah, it would be a smart move for her, and I don't think Obama can plausibly refuse to agree to a revote.

Though I could see him winning Michigan, and losing narrowly in Florida. So it is a high risk strategy for Clinton, but she needs to take risks.

I still wouldn't vote for her if she was running against the devil himself, but that's just me.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 8:53 AM

I wan to go ahead and put the kibosh on people trying to say the Michigan re-vote would have to be closed. You can't close it. Michigan doesn't have partisan voter registration. That means there is no such thing in Michigan as a registered Republican or Democrat. Michigan has open primaries. If you have a re-vote there is no way to stop Republicans from voting in it. On primary day the way they did it was to give you one party's ballot or another and record that you voted. This would prevent you from getting a second ballot, this time presumably for the other party. With only the Democratic contest Republicans would be free to show up, the election workers would have only the information that you are registered, they would have no partisan log, so they would give Republicans ballots, and Republicans would be free to cast votes in the Democratic primary. There is absolutely no way around this short of changing Michigan to partisan registration and re-registering every voter in the state. Sorry, but there is no good way to resolve Michigan. You either get a re-vote in which Michigan's Republicans are free to flock to the polls, unseat Michigan in which case the bitter state punishes the DNC in November, or you seat the delegates according to the first vote, angering Obama supporters.

Posted by Jon | March 5, 2008 9:07 AM

Why wouldn't Obama want a re-vote? There's a good chance that he would win Michigan the second time around, and lessen the margin of victory in Florida. Besides this, it would be suicidal to oppose it if he wanted to win them in the fall. Fighting the seating of delegates chosen in uncontested primaries is a fight he can win, but there's no practical or strategic reason to oppose a re-vote.

Posted by Howard | March 5, 2008 10:36 AM

As a Florida voter, I wouldn't mind having a re-vote from the perspective that it would be nice to get a ground game and system going here like the other states have benefited from, including the excitement and enthusiasm. I think having that in place sooner than later benefits the Democratic ticket, as other states have shown record turn-outs and record new voter sign ups.

The real reason that Charlie Crist has offered this now though, is that he is a potential Republican VP candidate and is wanting to signal the party that he is a team player. By having a re-vote, that entangles the Democratic candidates longer, makes them burn through more money, and prevents a true candidate from emerging sooner to begin working on their campaign and against McCain.

It will be interesting to watch how it all plays out.

Posted by Dennis | March 5, 2008 11:00 AM

Heckuva job, Howie!

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM

How would this help her? Even under the most generous assumptions FL and MI wouldn't close the delegate gap. The only "moral claim" on the nomination that anyone would find legitimate is winning the popular vote. If you count the current MI and FL popular votes as is, and don't count any popular vote totals from caucus states, Hillary has a tiny lead in the popular vote (I think someone said it was about 36,000 votes). That's with Obama having virtually 0 votes in Michigan. So it seems like victories in MI (not guaranteed anyway) and FL would not only fail to give her a delegate lead, but actually put her behind in the popular vote.

Posted by Brendan | March 5, 2008 11:02 AM

I'll join the chorus of the puzzled on the notion that the Obama camp would even want to resist a revote. Michigan would probably be a significant win for them (and a "major industrial state" that isn't Illinois),and would probably net them more delegates than they'd lose in Florida. Meanwhile, they could finally put all the silly "if Michigan and Florida's delegates are seated..." talk to bed.

Posted by Adam | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM

Of course there should be a re-vote. Obama's in a horrible position though - he can't really support a re-vote without leaving himself open to criticism. The minute he so much as suggests it might be a good idea, he can be painted a candidate so corrupt that he'll make them run the election over and over until he gets the right result.

On the other hand, if he doesn't support a re-vote, he's the corrupt candidate trying to disenfranchise the voters.

So he's damned whatever he says. Really, he should have been calling for the vote to be reschedulted before it ever happened the first time - as should every other candidate in the election.

Posted by Peter Ellis | March 5, 2008 11:07 AM

The minute he so much as suggests it might be a good idea, he can be painted a candidate so corrupt that he'll make them run the election over and over until he gets the right result.

What? This is nuts. If Hillary proposes the re-vote and he agrees, no one could possibly argue this.

Posted by Brendan | March 5, 2008 11:12 AM

Yes, and then lets go ahead and revote for BILL.

I wish we could turn the clock back.........I am all Clintoned OUT.

Posted by lisa | March 5, 2008 11:32 AM

As an Obama supporter in Florida, I say "Bring it on!"

Posted by nitpicker | March 5, 2008 12:31 PM

Michigan Democratic Party leaders, almost all of whom are supporting Clinton, say they couldn't possibly organize a primary or caucus in just 3-4 month. As a long-time Mich. Democrat, I'm that's true: they haven't had a legitimate primary since 1992. I'm angry that party leaders here denied me the chance to have a voice in the most remarkable nomination race of my lifetime--but I'm mad at them, not at Senators Clinton and Obama or DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Levin, Debbie Dingell, Gov. Granholm, and other MDP leaders knew full well they were violating the national party rules in scheduling the primary outside the window. Now, they're worried they won't get floor seats at the national convention, not that ordinary Democrats didn't get a voice in picking our party's nominee. At this point, I don't care whether Michigan gets a do-over or not, or even whether Hillary or Obama wins the nomination -- they're both good. Let's get on with the important business of beating McCain.

Posted by P.J. in Michigan | March 5, 2008 1:01 PM

In America politics today, pundits and media reward politicians and say how smart they are when the politician uses Bully tactics and an "Swiftboat" mentality when they tear their opponents down by smear, distortions and lies --"swift boating". The news media and pundits like to Praise the unscrupulous Politician up instead of disavowing them. The pundits like to say how Brilliant they are; What a Victory they say; what a Comeback Kid; and justify their use of Negative Ads and reward the worst in us -- this low and base behavior which should be outgrown as a humanitarian society. How many good and decent men have gone down because they were unfairly swiftboated by their opponents, mischaracaterized by those who have no morals or ethics. Something is wrong with that picture.

There is nothing brilliant about lies, distortions, peddling fear, swiftboating, and an assassination of one's character, it's not a physical killing but a killing just the same, an emotional theft and mental crime. It's slander and distortion of the worse kind and should not be rewarded or esteemed as characteristics we need to emulate within our society. Do we emulate the school yard bully? Or the thief who steals one's life's earnings? It's Dirty Politics and should be called what it is, a crime. If America is to ever become better than what she is, than we must disavow this kind of tactics because it has no place in Democracy's arms, no place in a sane and peaceful society.

Running a country is serious business and it is not a game, it is not acting. It's the governing of people and their lives and should be taken as a solemn oath and duty. Dirty politics should not be looked up to as a virtue and politicians should not be allowed to swiftboat their opponent, for the sake of gain by any means at any cost.

There is a Right way to Fight and a Wrong way to Fight. Victory based on lies and cheating should not be condoned. There should be campaign laws about this kind of unscrupulous politicking. It should not be rewarded with the highest office in the land. It should be called what it is a Crime.

America is only as good as her politicians and leaders.

Right Wing Canadian Prime Minister Tied to Leak Slurring Obama

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_080304_oen_nails_right_wing.htm

Posted by Angelight | March 5, 2008 2:32 PM

1. I would vote for Hillary if she ends up winning, no matter what the circumstances, because I can get over my anger at her campaign tactics and narcissistic political style for the greater good of electing a democrat -- any democrat -- over a third Bush term headed up by McCain (with a 40 year conservative supreme court hanging in the balance). We need to get over it, no matter how it plays out, because the GOP political wing and the wingnuts they embody are, in fact, "the Devil himself." We need to find a way to get over it -- and despite her personality flaws, she would make a far better President than McCain. Fortunately, I still think she will lose, but that's another issue. Those of us who are Obama supporters need to remember the big picture, and to remind our colleagues -- especially our younger colleagues -- that Hillary is not as evil as the media and GOP make her out to be, and that defeating the GOP is far more important than whatever priniciple would be involved in sitting this out or supporting the GOP or Nader in the election. There is a huge difference -- just as there was in 2000 -- and we can't afford the cost of principle, regardless of how this plays out.

2. Obama should agree to a do-over, even though he will likely lose Florida (because of high ratio of elderly voters and, particularly, elderly Jewish voters, who are one of Hillary's strongest constituencies). It is also a big college state, with a sizable African American population, and Republicans would not be able to switch over to throw more support her way (like they did in both Ohio and Texas) because most or all of them have already voted in the GOP primary. With time and money, Obama should do well enough (and certainly better than he did in the illegal primary). And he would run close or ahead in Michigan also. It would further legitimize his pledged delegate lead, eliminate the problems of not seating these two very important large delegations, and give him a chance to defeat her on her home turf, which is what he really needs to put an end to her candidacy. In my opinion, he should suggest it and advocate it ASAP -- get ahead of her on the issue.

Posted by MT from CC | March 5, 2008 2:54 PM

How the Democrats can save themselves from themselves, and make their nominee legitimate:

Re-vote in Michigan and Florida on the same day as Pennsylvania.

Get rid of superdelegates (or force them to split their vote 50-50), essentially lowering the number to 1627 pledged delegates needed to win.

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM

No, no, no, no, no, no! Do NOT hold this in June.

Christ wants to drag this out.

We need to wrap it up.

Do it in early April, or NOT AT ALL!!!

Seriously Dems, dragging this out only means one thing: President McCain and his 100 Years War + "other wars". Don't be stupid. Accelerate this calendar. I don't care who wins, but we need a winner soon.

Posted by Jane | March 5, 2008 4:57 PM

Let the cheating states re-vote as tie-breakers? Wow, that could only be better if it were Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004)instead of Florida and Michigan! "Hey, for the rest of you voters out there, we're going to outweigh what you had to say so suck it up!"
BTW, I am a Florida voter who voted in the primary and as you can see, I don't think there should be a "mulligan"!

Posted by rkstarbuck | March 5, 2008 5:58 PM

We need a winner soon yes, but we're not going to get it. This dogfight is going to continue till the Convention. Whether there are two additional primaries or not in the meantime won't change that.

Posted by beowulf | March 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Common sense should win out on this one. What difference does it make when they vote? The voters of Michigan and Florida have cast their ballots. It makes no sense to deny them their voice. But then what place has common sense ever had in politics?

Posted by Richard Wood | March 5, 2008 6:07 PM

She won Michigan by 20% (60 - 40)

she got 60% of the vote and people were VERY encouraged to vote in Mi. Uncommitted was campaigned for heavily and she still won. She can win in MI.

Posted by Rock Water | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

She won Michigan by 20% (60 - 40)

she got 60% of the vote and people were VERY encouraged to vote in Mi. Uncommitted was campaigned for heavily and she still won. She can win in MI.

Posted by Rock Water | March 5, 2008 6:10 PM

OK, let me make sure I've got this:

Hillary is behind in the popular vote and behind in pledged delegates. She has no way of passing Sen. Obama in either, so.... she want the superdelegates to over-ride the people.

I'm so tired of this.

Posted by Phyllis, Dallas TX | March 5, 2008 7:01 PM

NO the primaries would have to be closed to those already registered as democrats to stop double voting from republicans.

Obama will lose these. How easy is it to campagin against someone who didn't want those states to count. hmmm Pretty easy.

Michigan is very much like pennsylvania and Ohio, with more delegates.

Closed revote Primaries will give Clinton the edge and the momentum. They will happen sooner rather than later and the lull between mississippi and Pennsylavania is perfect for this to occur.

If I were Obama I'd say let the delegates stand right now and fast. These wont be caucuses, not after last night in Texas.

Clinton then has massive MO going in to Penn, Indiana Kentucky, North Carolina.

Its a lose-lose for Obama. He lost by winning the caucuses last night. It proves these states cant redo with a caucus.

Posted by s.b. | March 5, 2008 7:02 PM

COUNT THE VOTES!!

Posted by Caroline | March 5, 2008 7:21 PM

In November if Obama slides in and our votes are not counted in both states before or at the convention we will vote for:

Mc Cain

Nader

Stay home

Posted by Caroline | March 5, 2008 7:36 PM

My view on the FL and MI situation is allow a new primary in both states and on the same day as PA so it will all be settled. The Clinton camp has an edge in FL because if you remember, it was the highest primary turnout in history of FL and she beat BO by 300K votes. Its unlikely that will change. The MI primary also had record turnout and BO and his campaign spent a lot of money there telling 'folks' to vote uncommitted, which they did. Hillary spent nothing there and beat out uncommitted big time. 200K.
Let them revote there. Its just more wasted money because the population demographics favor HRC and she won both states popular votes by a landslide. An interesting note..total up all the votes..everywhere and they are even to date. I think I read that 20,000 votes separate them. That is a lot of people who have voted speaking to each other and both parties.
I believe they are saying that Dems will win regardless of who polls what today nationally, and Dems will win with out any difficulty. We are motivated.
Now the question remains who should head the ticket? I think it is HRC because of the experience she has that is good for all of us. She has always been a true Democrat..beginning with her work on the Children's Defense Foundation through her Senate successes which include navigating more positive funding and programs for the 'folks' in her state than any other Senator during her tenure. That very positive record benefits her constituents and all of us as she is an expert at reaching across the aisles for compromise to accomplishments with a record to prove it.
Mr Obama is young and has a lot of time to prove that his record is his record. I think Mr Jones, who mentored and added Obamas name to many bills (64) as a sponsor, during Obama's 5th year as a legislator, from the Illinois State might be a useful person for any young man with a promise as bright as Obama, to know. Mr Jones personally saw to it that Obama had a record because as he put it.."I am going to make myself a Senator" referring to Obama. (See Todd Spivac, 'Barak & Me', Houston Chronicle.com, February 28th.)
After investigating Mr Obama, just a little, I found many unanswered questions with reference to his relationship with Antoine Rezko, the monies from Rezko-his denial of his friendship with Rezko, his sudden recollection of Feb.20th of his 17 year friendship, authorship of many bills, authorship of speeches, $710,000 paid to 36 Super Delegates from his PAC this year and the make up of the top tier of his campaign which doesn't include any minorities (Wall Street Journal) is a lot for the Repubs to work with. Too much, too easy..
So I see the solution as simple-either seat the delegates from those two states and give the nomination to HRC and let Mr. Obama learn on the job as VP so he can have a real platform in 8 years-not a suicidal run against the Repubs who are waiting to go.. (as evidenced by the infamous 'photo' which, with no factual evidence to back me up, guess was planted by a Karl Rove wanna bee) or waste more time and more money and end up with the same result..waste more time and more money.

Posted by MMiller | March 5, 2008 7:40 PM

be careful what you wish for Clinton supporters--
I actually live in Florida

did you know that Florida raised the 4th highest amount of money from Obama?

did you know that there were smear mailings to the jewish commuinity in Florida just before the Jan 29th vote that now people are starting to realize were all lies? and that the favorite congressman of the older crowd is now Obama state co chair Robert Wexler?

did you know that the major newspapers in dade, broward and palm beach all endorsed Sen Obama -

did you know florida has some of the largest college, university populations in the country?

did you know there is an angry (right fully so) african american populus who was disenfranchised in florida by gov bush and his cronies?

did you know that 80% of Clintons lead was in dade, broward and palm beach county -- see all the above

bring it on---
Florida is OBAMA land

Posted by alison | March 5, 2008 7:41 PM

As it stands now neither Hillary or Obama will reach the magic total of 2025. Fl and Mi have a combined total of about 200 delegates to be committed, not counting super delegates. If the difference between the two remains about 100 ( a likely scenario)it would leave Obama slightly short of 2025....around 1970 or so. If Fl and Mi have a revote even if Hillary kicks butt, which is unlikely, it will have the result of putting Obama over the top. I don't see any way Hillary can overtake Obama unless she can convince most of the remaining s/delegates to go with her.

Posted by jk | March 5, 2008 7:55 PM

Folks, if you want to get upset, at least get your facts straight. Hillary is behind in the pledged delegates, and probably cannot catch up. However, Obama probably cannot get a sufficient edge in delegates through the remaining primaries either. So, neither will get over the threshold for automatic nomination.

In the popular vote, if we discount the caucuses (mainly beacuse we don't know how to count those votes), Hillary is ahead by about 200,000 votes, without counting MI and FL.

The nomination will be clearly be decided at the convention, or by some other compromise reached just ahead. Whether the tie-breaker should be the higher number of pledged delegates, or the popular vote, or perhaps the quality of the states won, is just like arguing about the tie-breaker rules for the playoffs of professional sports and their order of priorities.

Neither candidate is going to step down (nor should they) until the race is run. We have just seen that with the "other guys". The prize is very high, and it is worth a good fight. We should EXPECT no less from our candidates, as long as they play within the electoral rules, which so far neither has violated. So, relax, stop worrying about extraneous arguments about anybody "trying to destroy the party", and let's focus on winning the GE in November, regardless of who turns out to be the candidate and how long it takes us to find out.

Posted by andybob | March 5, 2008 7:56 PM

People are always going on about how important the youth vote is. I live in Florida and this has been the first presidential primary I have been able to vote in. Do you have any idea how discouraging it is for a generation who already believe that their vote doesn't count to be told that it really doesn't. Personally, I will vote as often as I can, but I have friends who couldn't care less. I say we need a revote no matter who might win. Our country is a democracy. Every voice should be heard, and every vote should be counted.

Posted by Heather | March 5, 2008 7:59 PM

"NO the primaries would have to be closed to those already registered as democrats to stop double voting from republicans."

How do you plan to pull that off in Michigan? WE DON'T HAVE PARTISAN REGISTRATION IN THIS STATE!!!!! There are no registered Democrats in Michigan. There are no registered Republicans in Michigan. There is only one group in Michigan, registered VOTERS! To do what you are suggesting you would have to re-register all of Michigan's voters. Whether you like it or not any re-vote in Michigan will have Republican voters voting in the Democratic contest. There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Posted by Jon | March 5, 2008 8:09 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

YOU FOLKS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IN MICHIGAN, REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL VOTE IF THERE IS ANOTHER PRIMARY ELECTION IN MICHIGAN. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL OUT OF WORK AND LOSING OUR HOMES.

Posted by michael | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM

I'm from Michigan and I want my vote to count.I really don't care if Obama or Hillary win as long as we beat McCain.The real nightmare is if Obama after all is said and done leads by 30-50 delegates and Hillary wins the popular vote.You remember the uproar over Gore having more votes than Bush.Who do the supers vote for than.

Posted by Jim Purdy | March 5, 2008 9:09 PM

All I can say is the Orignal Primary in Florida should count. Many Florida Dems are going to revolt and not vote for Obama if we are not counted I and many of my Friends will vote Republican in Protest to the DNC Madness

Posted by Darrell | March 5, 2008 9:11 PM

The DNC is a discrace in what they did to Florida as a Floridain our Votes should count they can not dicate to a States Soverign Rights when it wants to hold a Primary. Watch Florida go Republican in November all thanks to the DNC

Posted by Darrell | March 5, 2008 9:14 PM

All I can say is the Orignal Primary in Florida should count. Many Florida Dems are going to revolt and not vote for Obama if we are not counted I and many of my Friends will vote Republican in Protest to the DNC Madness

Posted by Darrell | March 5, 2008 9:18 PM

There should be no revote. The delegates from Florida and Michigan should be counted based on the original votes cast. In short, the DNC needs to get smart and reverse itself.

And the superdelegates will decide who is the best candidate, which is why the superdelegates were designated in the first place. You really need to moderate the results of the primaries and caucases (some, like in Iowa and Texas really quite weird) with good practical common sense.

So, it really doesn't matter if Obama has a few more delegates than Clinton. If the elected officials in the party feel she would be the stronger candidate, they should select her. Period.

Posted by Eliot Vestner | March 5, 2008 9:45 PM

FLORIDA
No revote necessary because nobody campaigned there so the voting that took place happened in a fair and just way, perhaps more so than any other state because it wasn't tainted with political ads and campaign appearances. Just seat delegates according to those results.

MICHIGAN
Yes, a revote! The people in this state is not any less important than people from any other state and anything less than a revote would imply that. Because Clinton's name was the only name on the ballot, the results should not count and a revote must happen.

Posted by don | March 5, 2008 9:49 PM

The whole superdelegate system is very strange and doesn't sound democratic BUT if they are forced to go with the popular vote than what's the point of having them? I thought there were set up to counter that notion. If both candidates end up with close to 2000 elected delegates each and only 100 or less separate them that is NOT a big margin, that is tiny, like 5% and if the candidate with 100 less delegates gain more superdelegates to get the nomination, that is perfectly fine with me because it's not like it's the blow out.

Posted by lewis | March 5, 2008 9:59 PM

FROM THIS MORNING ON CNN QUICK VOTE:

Should Florida and Michigan Democrats have their delegates counted? 62%

Have new primaries or caucuses 16%

Not be counted at all 21%

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Posted by Caroline | March 5, 2008 11:38 PM

An earlier post by Jon makes a good point. If Michigan held a new Democratic primary, any registered voter would be eligible to vote in it regardless of party affiliation. The opportunity for Republican mischief would be irresistable. Nevertheless, I'm still furious that I was denied the chance to participate in the selection of the Democratic Party's nominee for president when Michigan held its non-sanctioned primary last January. Mark Brewer, the twit who is our state party's chairman, told us that if we wrote in Senator Obama's name, our ballots wouldn't be counted. We were encouraged to check the box for "Uncommitted" and hope the delegates selected in this way would wind up voting for Obama if they were seated at the convention in Denver. Surprisingly, many of us doubted this would happen, given that Governor Granholm (the prime mover in changing the date of Michigan's primary in defiance of national party rules as well as a Clinton super delegate) would head the Michigan delegation. So, while the rest of the county gets to take part in this historic election (and Florida's citizens seem likely to get a do-over in their state if Governor Crist gets his way), Michigan's Democrats who want to vote for Obama are - and will probably remain - screwed. Only in America.

Posted by A Michigan Democrat | March 5, 2008 11:47 PM

I CAN NOT ONLY SMELL WHAT OBAMA IS COOKING I CAN ALSO SEE & HEAR IT:

OBAMA = REZKO = BEST FRIEND = NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR = IN TROUBLE WITH FED =
FOR OABAMS LAND = PAID FOR PART OF OBAMAS MANSION HE LIVES IN = FED TRIAL

OBAMA = TAKES HILLARYS IDEAS FOR HIS OWN = TAKES HILLARYS ECO.PLAN = TAKES HILLARYS WORDS

OABAMA = FRIEND = NEIGHBOR = DONOR = TERRORIST TIES

OBAMA = ARM TWISTING SUPER DELEGATES

OBAMA = DROWNING IN DRAMA

OBAMA = SCANDALS BREAKING ALL AROUND

OBAMA = WIFE NOT PROUD OF HER COUNTRY UNTIL NOW THAT HER HUSBAND IS GETTING VOTES. STOP VOTING FOR HER HUSBAND AND SHE WILL BE ASHAMED OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY ONCE AGAIN.

OBAMA = HEAD IN THE CLOUDS

AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON......................

Posted by Caroline | March 6, 2008 2:14 AM

Just a few of the Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief:

General Wesley Clark
General John M. Shalikashvili
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager

Experience that will keep America safe.

VOTE HILLARY 08

GO HILLARY GO!!!!

Posted by Caroline | March 6, 2008 2:22 AM

I think Florida and Michigan could easily fund the costs of new primaries if they put up websites asking their voters to make voluntary contributions for this purpose. After all, Clinton and Obama raised $85 Million in small donations over the internet in February. Clinton and Obama could get the ball rolling by kicking in $2 Million each from their warchests.

See my blog post http://logicalandtrue.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/a-solution-for-florida-and-michigan-delegates-conundrum/ for more details.

Posted by Roger Berlind | March 6, 2008 10:33 AM

A total redo as a primary would be the most fair way to go. Florida would be fair if counted as currently is or if redone (since neither side campaigned except for Obama's cable ads and the momentum was actually on Obama's side before Fl from SC- the huge turnout indicates that that is the way FL wanted to vote). Michigan has to have another primary- as Obama was not on the ballot.

Don't count HRC out in Michigan- many of her supporters did not come out. Outside of Detroit and Ann Arbor, Michigan is Ohio demographically.

Leon

Posted by NYC Leon | March 6, 2008 1:50 PM

If Obama wants to play by the rules, he should allow the superdelegates to have the flexibility that they HAVE ALWAYS HAD. So let's play by the rules when it comes to FL and MI but let's obligate the superdelegates to vote a certain way-- that's double talk Obama. You want to change some rules, but not all of them?
I'm glad this campaign is turning out the way it is. He's no different, except that he has good speaking abilities. He's a double talking politician who happens to be a good speaker. But then again so is my Bose CD player.

Posted by stinger | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM

now isn't this funny
when we wanted a re-vote in florida for the horrible bush election
did we get one?no...Because all black people are felons
but since Hypacritical Hillary wants one..DNC and those people working undercover ( Bush Adminastration) will mostly get her a re-vote...How many people want a black president...Everyone except for those Conservative Republicans and Democrats(Modern Day Confederates) yes we know the Republican Party played a major role some what 200 years ago by Freeing the slaves...but they are the same ones that started an all out bloody war for oil...and who do we blame for that...the Bush Adminastration...AMERICA-A Country Built on Lies and the Blood and Tears from Our Ancestors
I Am A Hispanic Male...only 18 years of age...Barack Hussein Obama has my vote

Posted by joey | March 7, 2008 4:53 PM

Florida and Michigan knew the rules and apparently agreed with them. Then, knowing the consequences, broke them. There's nothing to argue about. It's done. They made the decision and now they want a RETRY? Folks, look at yourselves. When your kids broke the rules, did they get to go right back and do it again?? It makes no difference who would get the delegates because THERE ARE NONE TO BE HAD. That horse left the barn. Can I be anymore clear? They can have their re-do in 2012. What good are the rules if they mean nothing?

Posted by Spetz | March 9, 2008 7:43 PM

The problem I have with a "revote" in an open primary is one of sabatoge. In SW Ohio, Republican radio stations were openly calling for voters to vote for Hillary, because she can't beat McCain in a general election and all day long on election day, there was a shortage of "crossover" ballots. In some counties with only 13K or so Dems registered, there were 26K votes, most of which were going to Hillary.

The Republican know if Obama wins the primary, they have no chance in the general election. That is why I have a real problem with an "open" primary. If you vote Dem in the primary, you should lose your vote if you try to vote Republican in the general election, PERIOD.

Posted by Mike P | March 10, 2008 8:51 AM

YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME!!! IF HILLARY CHEATS OBAM..I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!!!! SHE'S A LIAR, A THIEF AND A CROOK!!!! AND SO IS HER HUSBAND!!!!!

HEY HILLARY, WHERE'S YOUR TAX RETURNS!!! LET'S SEE HOW MUCH DOUGH YOUR HUSBAND MADE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!

Posted by Devi | March 10, 2008 9:21 AM

It appears the political heavy weights in both Florida and Michigan are being pressured to back a plan to have a "Do Over Vote" for both states. The only reason this is even happening is due to the tight race between Obama and Clinton. If you recall both candidates followed the call of their National Party Leader, Howard Dean and boycotted both states during the campaign.

Now due to the extremely tight race between the two candidates both states have come into play to determine the outcome for the Democratic Presidential candidate. No surprise both candidates now would like to see a re-vote.

I feel a "Do Over" Vote is wrong plain and simple. The state voted, candidates were chosen in spite of the political boycott. It would be wrong to ignore that vote it would in effect disenfranchise every voter who participated in the real primary! You don't get "Do Overs" in professional golf and you should not get "Do Overs" in professional politics. The Democratic Party and for that matter the Republican Party made their beds in reaching their decision to boycott and punish Florida voters, so now they must sleep in that bed. No Do Over for Florida!

Posted by Robertj1954 | March 10, 2008 9:57 AM

Hillary won Michigan 55% against undecided 40%. How is that not winning very well ?

Florida and Michigan are part of the United States and should have a say in the primaries just like all of the other states, Americans abroad, the American Samoa, Puerto Rico and Guam. Howard Dean is an idiot egomaniac. Take a look at how his candidacy fell apart several years ago. And now he's running the DNC? No wonder there's a mess. But since he insists on flexing his political muscle (cutting his nose off to spite his face to prove the point that he's in charge) a re-do will have to do. Voters in these states should get a chance to give their input just like everyone else. Regardless of who wins.

Posted by JN | March 10, 2008 11:35 PM

The financial contributors to the candidates' campaigns gave money with the assurance and expectation that the Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated. Like the candidates these contribtors had a "contract" under which they contributed. To now change those conditions of the contract may be grounds for a class action lawsuit against the DNC. Then another class action suit by Florida and Michigan voters could emerge against the DNC. Good luck DNC.

Posted by jmw | March 11, 2008 4:38 PM

IN ALL FAIRNESS THE VOTES SHOULD COUNT BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT OF THE WILL IMPACT THE ELECTION!! THE STATE LEGISLATIONS BROKE THE RULES YOUR STATE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES!!! YOU NEED TO ADRESS YOUR STATE LEGISTLATIVES!! BUT IN ALL FAIRNES EQUAL 50/50 SHOULD BE GIVEN TO EACH BUT LET ONE OR TWO DELEGATES GO TO HILLARY SO IN FACT FLORDIA WILL HAVE A SAY IN THE ELECTION!!! IN MICHIGAN THE VOTES SHOULD DEFENTLY BE REVOTED HIS NAME WASNT EVEN ON THE BALLOT SO DONT COUNT THAT!! FAIR BOTH SIDES GET THERE POINT ACROSS IN FLORDIA. THE VOTES WERE COUNTED AND HILLARY GETS THE MAJORITY OF THE DELEGATES BUT SINCE THE RULES WERE BROKEN ITS FAIR THAT THE SEPERATION OF DELEGATES RECIEVED SOULD NOT BE PRESENT!!!

Posted by D | March 12, 2008 6:00 PM

Hey Obama (WHERE'S YOUR TAX RETURNS! Lets see them both! Obama is nothing but the pied piper and he has followers. Foolish followers but followers! How is he going to run the White house always playing the race card! When the country doesnt agree with him is he going to say we are being raciest? It is going to be a mess! And the saturday night live role playing has some truth to it, he is bluffing you all! If Hillary doesnt win Im voting republican! And so is my husband! I'm not following the pied piper and risking my country at his expense!

Posted by annasmyles | March 12, 2008 10:51 PM

It is not fair at all for HC supporeters to just open their mouth and write whatever as if their eyes were closed and in ability to ask questions woul;d not be a case of share Ignorance by making statements that were not geuine about Barack Obama or trying to force unreasonable assertion abnout his thought.

Hence enough is enough get real about what you write.

Hillary Clinton shall not be in position to dictate what happen to Michigan and Florida as it is now. This is amatter for those who were responsible, I guess we know who as agaist those who do not but definitely not Obama, and why on Earth, those elements believing that Obama will oppose a Do over that is reasonable Fair and devoid of any malpractices or flaws.

Where all reasonable Faoir way of sttling this is not visible, my only suggestion shall be that the rule of the National Democratic Committee shall stand except otherwise where all the parties have agreed to reach a suitble consensus to disentangle this current problem associated with unruly DNC from both Michigan and Florida.

Posted by Roy Sulyly | March 17, 2008 2:41 PM

There is a big grassroots movement happening in Florida and Michigan to have the people fund a revote at FloridaMichiganRevote.com it is a new sit getting a lot of buzz.

Posted by One Voice | March 29, 2008 10:16 PM

The votes made in both Michigan and Florida must be counted, otherwise their will be a revolt.
Hillary is the best woman for the job, she must be given a chance to seize her rightful place.

Posted by Viv | May 4, 2008 10:59 PM

Sitting here in Candada wondering how anyone can be elected by only some of the popullation?? im an Obama supporter, but of course there should be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, and of course Hillary should not drop out till every vote is counted. This is democracy is it not??

Posted by cory | May 9, 2008 4:32 AM

I keep hearing in the American media that a re-vote is against the rules. Im just a little confused how making the superdelagates votes look unfare, or as robbery is any different?? These were the rules from the beginging were they not? Seems sticking too the rules depends on what side you are on.

I just could not imagine our Canadian Prime Minister being elected with the votes in say British Columbia or Ontario not being counted.

Please grow up, stop whinning because your side may get hurt and do the right thing.

Posted by cory | May 9, 2008 4:46 AM