House Dems in Florida: No Re-Do

Moments ago, Democrats representing Florida in Congress released this joint statement, effectively putting the kibosh on a mail-in re-do primary:

"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

Even if the candidates agree, there will be no expedited solution unless the courts somehow intervene, which, given a series of federal court rulings last year, is unlikely.

Comments

I'm just waiting for Clinton to file a lawsuit. Shit.

Posted by justinb | March 11, 2008 10:39 PM

I totally agree. The potential for fraud/disenfranchisement/error is too great, esp considering Florida's history.

This would be a new type of voting format for FL. Oregon does it well, but it has been perfected over 10 years. A mail in vote is not trivial.

Imagine how much easier it would be to commit fraud with these mail in ballots. And don't you just know that if anyone's votes were lost in the mail, it would be those of the black community.

No thanks. No change in the rules just to suit Hillary.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:40 PM

The only problem is (and I'm a firm supporter of the rules) that delegation needs to be seated. No point in pissing off Florida (even though I don't think we'll win it against McCain).

The spread between them was 17%. Edwards and Kucinich combined pulled 17% of the vote.

ENDORSE!!! Prove you give a damn about the party and pick already. This elder statesman crap is giving me a headache.

Posted by Kim | March 11, 2008 10:46 PM

THE SCREAM rechoes in the nightmares of Democrats across the nation.

That twisted Elmer Fudd mouth still gaping horrifically for all eternity.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 10:50 PM

Split the votes in half for Florida and Michigan.

Posted by thevoter | March 11, 2008 10:50 PM

The candidates should just split the FL delegates 50-50 and be done with it. No, Clinton won't be happy with that solution, but she should prefer it to getting 0 delegates from the state (which would happen if it goes to the credentials committee).

I don't trust Floridians to handle a mail-in vote. Chads, chads, chads. Ick.

Posted by Dan | March 11, 2008 10:53 PM

This might be an attempt to play hardball for Clinton, but I suspect it will end up hurting her. The DNC is never going to just seat these delegates as is, and the popular vote tally won't cut it either. I would guess that the end result of this approach will be no delegates for Florida unless the credentials committee allows it - which means that the winner will seat them on his or her terms. Given that the winner will almost certainly be Obama, I can't see Clinton getting those delegates any time soon.
Of course, it didn't help that by law Florida could not use a mail-in primary to resolve this. What next? Presumably the Clintons will offer to pay half the cost of a new primary, and try and present Obama as the great disenfranchiser of the innocently virgin voters of Florida.

"It's 3 am in the Florida Keys and the voting machine is ringing... who do you want to see guarding your votes while America sleeps" (Cut to shot of impausibly innocent Latino family and sweetly posed voting machine menaced by undefined black figure wielding a knife). Wouldn't you feel safer with ... Hillary? (Cut to shot of woman in glasses looking dedicated and owlish). Hillary Clinton, protecting you while you vote. Hillary - protection you can rely on!" (Cue vaguely martial music and fade to black).

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 10:54 PM

Will someone please explain to me how sentence #1 and sentence #2 in that quote are the slightest bit consistent with each other?

Posted by Chris O. | March 11, 2008 10:54 PM

There is an elegant solution for the Democratic party, and that is that a huge number of superdelegates and party elders declare for Obama.

Then the votes go on as long as Hillary wants to go on, but Obama racks up win after win.

Then the delegates for FL and MI are seated, but for Obama.

There is no other solution that is a winner for the Democratic party. A re-vote is an invitation to a fiasco, and not likely to change the math that much.

If the party picks Hillary, then McCain will crow about how the "Democratic" party has picked a candidate that did not win a majority of delegates, popular votes, or states. Oh yeah, the African American community will never turn out for Hillary.

Shut this thing down...now...for Obama...and come together...and move on to the general election. Of course this would require going against the Clintons, who have never been particularly good for the party anyway.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 10:55 PM

By happy chance, Chris O, I have a new Clintonese decoder. The message reads:

"Screw you, Howard. We are Florida, and we will be seated. Forget your crummy rules, baby. Hillary wants it, and we will make Barack fold. Oh, and we screwed up about the mail-in, because some stupid law won't let us do it the corrupt way. Florida for Hillary - and you will blink first, because we are immensely important and if you anger us we will vote McCain."

It is actually totally consistent, if rather poor prose.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 10:59 PM

If Howard Dean was a little more competent, he might be trying to work a deal so that Obama would get Superdelegate support in exchange for getting his people to approve the Florida delegates.

Posted by Mike | March 11, 2008 11:04 PM

Do we really want the Demo ???? party running our country?

Posted by Claud | March 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Well, "Screw you Howard" is certainly justified, given that is what Fudd has repeatedly said to Florida, Michigan, and most of the other states in the union when they questioned his "business as usual" approach to the GROSSLY UNFAIR PRIMARY AND CAUCUS SYSTEM.

Now the incompetent and unbalanced little loser is CATATONIC. With his HANDS CLASPED TO HIS CHEEKS, HIS EYES GLAZED WIDE IN PANIC, AND HIS TWISTED LITTLE MOUTH GAPING IN A LONG DRAWN OUT "OHHHHHHHH!!!!!".

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 11:09 PM

Now the incompetent and unbalanced little loser is CATATONIC. With his HANDS CLASPED TO HIS CHEEKS, HIS EYES GLAZED WIDE IN PANIC, AND HIS TWISTED LITTLE MOUTH GAPING IN A LONG DRAWN OUT "OHHHHHHHH!!!!!".

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 11:09 PM

robert ethan goes autobiographical on us late in the night.. just don't ask!

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 11:12 PM

JUSTIN B

Bill Nelson filed a lawsuit last August and lost already

There is no lawsuit that Clinton can file with any merit
--
PREDICTION!
What they will do is split the pledged delegates and popular vote 50%/50% so the super delegates can be seated as they wish - that will be the compromise - as the majority of the Florida super delegates are for Sen Clinton -- and she needs ever last one

--
Obama should agree to this tying in if Michigan has a caucus -- to level the playing field (Obama ahead in all Michigan polls)

That's my prediction

Posted by alison | March 11, 2008 11:13 PM

I agree that this smacks of Clinton mischief. Still, I also concur that it ups the possibility of the delegates simply being split. Increasing reports are that, even if both FL and MI are re-dos, we'll end up just where we started. Though I agree that the delegates need to be seated somehow, if we'll end up at the same stalemate, it's a terrific waste of cash - even if it is Corzine's.

Also, I can't help but think this could end up a bad week for HRC and superdelegates. Already, we've heard Pelosi's comment on the non-prospect of a joint ticket. Ferraro's rantings can't exactly help lure supers to Clinton - in fact, quite the opposite. We'll they really rally around an increasingly divisive candidate.

Posted by Judy | March 11, 2008 11:21 PM

Wherever Hillary is, she divides people, polarizes, and all around messes things up. It's her way.

As to a mail in vote, that's a joke. A mail in vote is not a trivial thing; it took Oregon 10 years to perfect it, and it involved things like scanning in everyone's signature and having it on file.

Then consider this is Florida. They cannot do their usual election process right most of the time, and what makes you think they will get a new type of vote right the first time?

Also, consider the potential for fraud and disenfranchisement. I wonder how many black votes would end up in the garbage, having been "lost" in the mail?

Sorry, but this is a recipe for making things worse and not better.

Posted by cm | March 11, 2008 11:25 PM

Many of these comments reflect completely unlawful solutions, to wit: splitting delegates 50/50, re-voting, making Michigan a caucus, etc.

The problem is that it violates citizens' civil rights to change the rules of an election after the fact. This is the substance of Bush v. Gore.

The FL and MI elections are over and they counted for 0 delegates because they violated party rules concerning the permissible dates of the primary elections.

The superdelegates will have to decide this, presumably sometime over the summer. But FL and MI are done.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 11, 2008 11:28 PM

Seeing D'rats squabbling like children over the toys is entirely too entertaining to let it end. Keep scratching Hilly. Let the nation know the party is incompetent, corrupt, power mad and just too stupid to command.

Just how is it that these useless cretins are the candidates of choice in the 21st century?

Posted by Clyde | March 11, 2008 11:35 PM

Hmmm...if the Dems have a do-over can the Repubs sue to make the Dems pay for a do-over for them also since many Dems thought their votes wouldn't count so they crossed over and voted in the Repub primary?

Posted by Sky | March 11, 2008 11:49 PM

ProfNickD,

Since Bush v. Gore concerned an election for federal office, it's easily distinguished from the instant case. Here, we're talking about a primary, which, for all the publicity it received, is still a contest for the nomination of a private entity (namely, the Democratic Party).

The voters do not have a federal constitutional right to determine the identity of a party's nominee. That right belongs to the party alone. Were it otherwise, the DNC could have never stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates in the place.

Perhaps Florida election law is another story. I don't know. But this case does not present a federal question.

Posted by Paul | March 12, 2008 12:06 AM

If Florida had a revote for Clinton & Obama, can we really guarantee that some voters wouldn't have accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan ?

Posted by Rial Poquette | March 12, 2008 12:14 AM

Didn't Joe Trippi just say that Obama would not be possible if it weren't for Howard Dean? Their supporters are one and the same, with the addition of the overwhelming and unquestioning black vote for Obama.

The TANGIBLE RESULTS of Dean's "hope and change" mentality are on full and garish display at the moment. Take a good long look at them and imagine what damage his equally vacuous and shallow spiritual successor will be able to inflict if given the opportunity.

Posted by robert ethan | March 12, 2008 12:14 AM

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=876

For those pesky legal questions......

Posted by dr evil | March 12, 2008 12:21 AM

A mail in system of voting is superior to any other. It is cheaper than any other kind of voting method, voter turnout blows any other system away, and it is very hard to corrupt it - ONCE YOU GET IT RIGHT.

You can still drop your ballot off at the county elections office, I always do. Why the rest of the country does not use this system is beyond me. It is an incredibly good way to vote, and our standard 85%+ voter turnout in Oregon is testament to that. But we are also a Democratic bastion, so I can see why Republicans would resist mail-in voting.

If Florida were to try and pull of a mail in system, WATCH OUT! This is a good system, but for a state known for rigging elections, this would be a bad, bad deal to come up with on a dime in a day.

Posted by David, Portland Oregon | March 12, 2008 12:22 AM

Don't know who is the instigator here, but it seems like a shot in the foot for HRC. The delegates-that-don't-exist will not be seated, but a re-vote offered the chance of a popular vote and delegate pick-up (big time with Cuban voters and Obama's stance on Cuba). Why not do it and hope to run up your popular vote?

Posted by anonymous | March 12, 2008 12:25 AM

Are some people so dense that they don't understand that a 50-50 split is the same operationally as not seating them at all?

Posted by E. O'Neal | March 12, 2008 12:27 AM

There's no wiggle room in that FL House Dems statement. Either it's a bluff, a game of chicken, or... they're ready to throw their state to McCain if they don't get their way completely, regardless of the rules.

Nice work down there, guys.

Posted by lampwick | March 12, 2008 12:30 AM

This is the substance of Bush v. Gore.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Funniest. Comment. Evah!

Even the Supremes, wittsters that they are, noted that this case established no precedents.

Posted by Jeff S. | March 12, 2008 12:32 AM

My prediction...

Michigan and Florida won't matter. Pennsylvania might not even matter. I think this Ferraro thing is going to be what finally starts to tip the campaign decisively toward Obama among the superdelegates - getting them off the fence. I think the adults in the Democratic party are reaching the point where they're fed up with the Clinton campaign's sleazy tactics and treatment of a fellow Democrat, and they're going to step in pretty soon. I think we saw a hint of it today with Nancy Pelosi's statement that seemed to take a swipe at Hillary.

That's just my prediction. There may be a vote in Pennsylvania but it will academic at that point.

Posted by SDinIA | March 12, 2008 12:39 AM

That's just my prediction. There may be a vote in Pennsylvania but it will academic at that point.

I should clarify. Obviously there will be a vote in Pennsylvania, but I predict by that point it will basically be meaningless.

Posted by SDinIA | March 12, 2008 12:41 AM

I don't know enough about how Florida's electoral process got so snarled up, but my guess is, at the end of the day, nobody wants to take credit for it – much less explain it so that 300 million Americans may understand, which at some point must also be done: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Quotes from the Clinton White House, as recounted by entertainer, Sinbad: “I can't go ‘cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife ... oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.”

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 12, 2008 12:44 AM

There is an easy solution.

Given that there is no way Clinton can catch up with Obama even with revotes in Florida (assume for argument's sake a Clinton win) and Michigan (Obama?), and with upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania (Clinton) and North Carolina (Obama), Indiana (Obama) etc etc., because Democratic party rules allocate delegats proportionally, making it impossible for her to even get within 100 delegates...

And given the need to conserve DNC funds for the General Election, and put a Dem back in the White House....

And given the wish to assure Florida and Michigan voters that their votes will count, even though it was their own state parties who gambled the votes away in a (in retrospect, TOTALLY STUPID) bet that an earlier beauty contest would be better for their state than a later, real, primary...

What should happen is this:

Hillary recognizes that she has lost. (She has lost, by the way.) She ends her campaign, she endorses Obama, and urges her delegates to vote for him, in the interest of party unity.

In the interest of party unity, and explicitly stating that this should not be taken as a precedent for future primary seasons, the credentials committee seats the two states' delegations. Peace and joy reign! Party unity is maintained. Florida voters have the same say as everyone else.

If she insists on an expensive, extremely dangerous precedent-setting and inevitably controversial revote, then the party is right to decline.

Posted by lostintranslation | March 12, 2008 12:45 AM

Obama can't win FL against McCain ... he should go to the mattresses on this one just to show that he will.

Posted by Dirk | March 12, 2008 12:55 AM

ProfNickD & Paul,

Two additional points:

1) Even if it were a federal election, individual citizens have no constitutional right to vote for president. US Constitution Article II Sec 1 Clause 2, read it and weep. The given state's legislature has the sole right of choosing that state's electors, or rather choosing the method of the choosing. Since about 1824, or so, most states have deigned to let us little people have a say. Colorado was the last state to choose electors by legislature in 1876. But, any state could choose presidential electors by legislative fiat at any time. Its their constitutional right. So Paul's point would basically stand, even in the general election, except substitute "state legislature" for "Democratic Party". The point being that the voters themselves have no case.

2) Your interpretation of Bush v. Gore is not correct. The issue that Bush argued was not that the rules were being changed in the middle of the game (that argument, a false one, was confined to the media spin), but that the rules as they existed were unconstitutional. Specifically, that they violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The argument was really weak, and if the decision could be applied to other cases (it can't, see below) then all state elections would be declared unconstitutional. They had an even more cockamamie argument to the effect that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the state legislature's constitutional prerogatives (see above). The 5-4 majority opinion would get any law student an F if they wrote it, but there it is. And it doesn't apply to our case (or any case) anyway, because the majority opinion states: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances..." Translation: "We're installing Bush, not building case law here. Move along." Alan Dershowitz calls the case the single most corrupt decision in SCOTUS history. Most democrats love to blame Nader for Bush. Me? I blame Sandra O'Connor.

Posted by David Eoll | March 12, 2008 1:02 AM

Paul @ 12:06,

Ah, but party primaries are not private -- they involve legislation and the use of taxpayer dollars so they cannot violate the 14th amendment. (See Nixon v. Herdon). To do so not only violates the principle of equal protection but raises a whole host of practical questions, for example:

* How about a re-do for other states?
* Can other candidates be on the ballot in a re-do -- if not, why not?
* How about eliminating pledged delegates and just making them all superdelegates?
* How about going back and saying CA counts for 10 delegates and WI for 500?
* How about all-white primaries?

Having a "re-do" for FL and MI makes about as much sense.

Jeff S. @12:32,

So you don't like Supreme Court decisions -- fair enough. I don't know, then, by what legal standard you would hold parties in their nomination process. Perhaps by what you think is correct. (We'll have the DNC page you right away.)

Bush v. Gore set no precedent, true, but I simply referred to its substance, namely, the state of FL in the 2000 race violated the principle of equal protection when it engaged in multiple recounts using multiple standards, all of them violating the state's (previously established) election laws.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 12, 2008 1:06 AM

The 5-4 majority opinion would get any law student an F if they wrote it, but there it is. And it doesn't apply to our case (or any case) anyway, because the majority opinion states: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances..." Translation: "We're installing Bush, not building case law here. Move along." Alan Dershowitz calls the case the single most corrupt decision in SCOTUS history. Most democrats love to blame Nader for Bush. Me? I blame Sandra O'Connor.

Werd!

Posted by Jeff S. | March 12, 2008 1:09 AM

Ralph Nader must be feeling like the annointed one these days. He wasn't even going to run, and this time he might really get some numbers!!!

Posted by s alderdice | March 12, 2008 1:11 AM

My prediction...

Michigan and Florida won't matter. Pennsylvania might not even matter. I think this Ferraro thing is going to be what finally starts to tip the campaign decisively toward Obama among the superdelegates - getting them off the fence. I think the adults in the Democratic party are reaching the point where they're fed up with the Clinton campaign's sleazy tactics and treatment of a fellow Democrat, and they're going to step in pretty soon. I think we saw a hint of it today with Nancy Pelosi's statement that seemed to take a swipe at Hillary.

That's just my prediction. There may be a vote in Pennsylvania but it will academic at that point.

Posted by SDinIA | March 12, 2008 12:39 AM

Even some of the people are partisan to Clinton,
Donna Brazile, and Lanny Davis. Are far from being impressed with Ferraro's remarks and have made sure they're distanced from her...

Posted by SC Rose | March 12, 2008 1:18 AM

Vote-by-mail is great. We have it in Oregon and I think any state that uses it will be quite happy with it. Not much chance of no paper trail with paper ballots that are mailed in. They can also be dropped off at designated points until election night. I would never deign to tell other states what to do, but I personally love the vote-by-mail system.

By the way, I'm not some hippie, despite my home state. I am a Republican and McCain supporter from the beginning.

Posted by Josh | March 12, 2008 1:35 AM

Ferraro told the truth, which in politics is called a gaffe. Obviously, no young white senator, three years removed from the Illinois legislature and without notable accomplishment, would ever be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

What the superdelegates need to notice is that Obama does well among white voters in states with few blacks, but poorly in states with many blacks -- like Ohio, Tennessee and Florida. In some southern Ohio counties, he got less than 30%. Michigan and Pennsylvania are also in this category. Check the exit polls if you don't believe me.

Posted by Frank | March 12, 2008 2:04 AM

You'd think Geraldine Ferraro made some totally off the wall comment that hadn't the remotest semblence of logic, instead of simply POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS. At least what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't IMBIBING IN THE KOOL AID on a regular basis DOWN AT THE CULT COMPOUND.

Call home, Cultists, your parents are getting worried about you.

Posted by robert ethan | March 12, 2008 2:13 AM

robert ethan,

i think the way you use caps is hot, really hot. do it s'more baby - it really gets my engine going.... rather, GOING.

oh yea baby, oh yea, you're so big

Posted by loving big robert ethan | March 12, 2008 2:19 AM

First, if fairness to voters means anything, it means fairness to ALL voters. After the Florida and Michigan state parties broke the rules despite being warned of having their delegates stripped, allowing them to jump back in now to have the critical say in the outcome of this race would be the height of unfairness to voters in all other states who did play under DNC rules.

The Florida Democrats who made this statement include 4 Clinton superdelegates, 2 Obama superdelegates, and 3 uncommitted. After the smackdown Pelosi gave the Clintons yesterday, I think this is a signal that Clinton's superdelegates are putting limits on thier support, saying in effect, no, we will not support you in your attempt to change the rules of the game just before it ends. I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Hillary.

Posted by Joseph | March 12, 2008 2:23 AM

That's dumb. Just dumb.

It would have been a fairly cheap election that would have excited the people of Florida. Instead the people of Florida will feel disenfranchised and enough Democrats will not vote, thus ensuring McCain winning Florida.

McCain may not even feel the need to spend a lot of money in Florida.

The Florida Democratic congressional delegation just handed their state to McCain.

What schmucks!

Posted by passionate_jus | March 12, 2008 2:40 AM

Pretty much every state moved their primary/caucus date up this cycle. Including those FAVORED FEW who were already at the head of the line, (courtesy of debts owed by A CERTAIN 2004 CANDIDATE to Tom Harkin in Iowa). Debts incurred in order to obtain Harkin's endorsement in what turned out to be a LAUGHABLY FUTILE run for the nomination.

Whose fault is it that the FAILED FORMER CANDIDATE WITH HEAVY BAGGAGE AND A RECORD OF INCOMPETENCE ended up in the highest posiiton of influence in the DNC? Certainly not Democratic participants in the states of Florida or Michigan.

Why should two states of the union, (who probably turn away an equivalent population to Iowa from their international borders every month), be handicapped by some self serving Devil's Bargain made by Elmer Sputterin' Fudd four years ago?

Posted by robert ethan | March 12, 2008 2:41 AM

Sorry for the OT, but this has got to be one of the funniest lines ever:

HILLARY: "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

SINBAD: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

lmao.

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 2:53 AM

Does anyone else notice a passing resemblance between robert ethan and Frank Chu?

(Frank Chu is a San Francisco local who shows up at each and every public event, carrying his emblematic sign. It is immediately recognizable by it's ALL CAPS font and the use of words such as "ebullient inoculations", "perverted treasons", and "lygrogrenial".)

Keep on fighting the power, robert chu. Prostatectomy(s) for everyone!

Posted by Jer | March 12, 2008 3:10 AM

Man, what a cluster-fuck this issue is.

You can't seat the delegates as they stand, because the campaigns didn't... campaign, so voters' concerns weren't addressed. Plus, informed voters stayed home, as they were told it wouldn't count anyway.

You can't re-do it, because of the FL House, which brings up some reasonable concerns... money, potential for corruption, etc, but which may also have it's own nefarious reasons.

You can't really just halve them like Chris Dodd (I think) suggested; that's a cop-out.

You can't totally ignore them; there are probably fewer issues that resonate with Florida voters than "disenfranchisement".

Florida Dems set this trap for themselves, and the Republicans in the Florida state congress closed it on top of them.

Posted by socctty | March 12, 2008 3:41 AM

Something that I haven't heard discussed much (at all?) is wha the consequences would be if Michigian and Florida are allowed back in.

Once again, this is typical of liberalism. No consequences. Threats - and then a moved line. Not holding people accountable. In issues ranging from foreign relations to bringing up children - it just doesn't work. You have to set the bar or rules, be very clear about the conseuences, and then IMPOSE the penalty. Otherwise, you are exposed as toothless.

In retrospect, it was dumb and shortsighted to threaten those states with "no delegates".

How does the DNC prevent any state from choosing whatever date they want in future primaries? Oops. "OK, guys...this time we REALLY mean it!"

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 3:52 AM

There is no constitutional problem with Michigan and Florida holding new contests or the DNC allocating them unelected delegations (the basic nature of a 50-50 split plan). The prior Michigan and Florida primaries were not approved by the DNC as delegate selection contests for the national convention, and therefore have no status as such.

In other words, for all practical and legal purposes it is as if Michigan and Florida never held contests at all. Indeed, you might be able to raise a legal issue if the DNC tried to retroactively turn those contests into delegate selection contests, although I think they would have the ability to basically allocate new unelected delegations using those results as the basis for their allocation (but I doubt that will happen).

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 3:53 AM

A wild-ass, baseless hypothesis: The Florida House Dems bit the bullet for the party. The blame will be laid on them; the interpretation will be "Well, THOSE CRAZIES IN THE FLORIDA HOUSE decided not to let you re-vote", and not a bunch of accusations from both sides about rigged elections.

Posted by socctty | March 12, 2008 3:59 AM

Posted by slick | March 12, 2008 3:52 AM

Home run.

Posted by socctty | March 12, 2008 4:05 AM

Posted by Frank | March 12, 2008 2:04 AM

"Ferraro told the truth, which in politics is called a gaffe. Obviously, no young white senator, three years removed from the Illinois legislature and without notable accomplishment, would ever be taken seriously as a presidential candidate."

You just described Abraham Lincoln.

Uh sure, he wasn't taken seriously. Maybe you think he rigged the Diebold machines or something?

Posted by Fred Couples | March 12, 2008 4:28 AM

You know who else would never have a chance? Some white guy who had only been Governor of a little state like Arkansas.

Generally, obviously it could never be the case that the political process would reward people who were unusually good at politics and who presented a consistent and attractive vision. I mean, clearly the only reason a poor politician with bad judgment and a lack of personal ethics could be losing is if she had to run against a black guy.

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 4:42 AM

"It's 3 am in the Florida Keys and the voting machine is ringing... who do you want to see guarding your votes while America sleeps" (Cut to shot of impausibly innocent Latino family and sweetly posed voting machine menaced by undefined black figure wielding a knife). Wouldn't you feel safer with ... Hillary? (Cut to shot of woman in glasses looking dedicated and owlish). Hillary Clinton, protecting you while you vote. Hillary - protection you can rely on!" (Cue vaguely martial music and fade to black).-------

This is closer to the truth than you may think. Rather have an owl than a radical .............

Posted by Che-y-Barack4ever | March 12, 2008 5:50 AM

thank god my vote counts... thanks Florida.

Posted by Brad | March 12, 2008 6:54 AM

I think they should split them down the middle, but they should not allow any superdelegates to vote from either state to tech those in power not to mess with the DNC. (Supers are all Hillary is really after anyway with this mess as the vote wouldn't mean much diff).

Josh

Posted by Josh | March 12, 2008 7:19 AM

Why not just have a revote, and whoever loses can blame the Republicans? Isn't that how it works? Blame the Republicans for irregularities/mistakes YOU make in YOUR district, in an election run by YOUR party, with a ballot designed by YOUR people?

"Guns and dogs! Guns and dogs!"

Posted by carmichael | March 12, 2008 7:49 AM

As an on the ground Dem active both in the DEC and the DWC, I can state that VBM (Vote by mail) is not only secure and preferred, but that in order to bypass Diebold machines, Florida Dems have been actively pursuing and enlarging VBM registrations for two years now.

FLorida turned out 1.7 million on their primary, the largest turnout ever. VBM is the only way to ensure that every voter can participate who wants to, and the cost is feasibile. Having a primary redo costs too much, and the Hillary camps, obviously, do not want a caucas format in lieu of a redo.

I'm deeply disappointed with my state legislators on this decision. We got into this mess due to the Republican State Legislators tying the early primary to a bill State Dems could not be seen as voting against, and rather than admit they got played, they are continuing this game of obstinancy at the cost of voter's voices.

Neither candidate campaigned in Florida, but at the time of the primary, Hillary had the "frontrunner" meme in full force, and Obama had no opportunity to present his campaign to voters at all.

The loser here is the voter, and it galls me that people don't realize how hard individual Dems work in this state, and that everydoby seems comfortable dismissing us as a bunch of chad-morons.

Contrary to the Hillary philosophy, every state matters. It's ridiculous that our state legislators dismissed VBM as a solution.

Posted by Jet Netwal | March 12, 2008 9:01 AM

This is the final nail in the coffin for Clinton... there's no way these delegates will be seated as-is by the DNC or the Credentials Committee and therefore no way she can win the nomination.

Posted by Fro | March 12, 2008 9:07 AM

As a yellow-dog Democrat, I've been unsure whom to support for the Democratic nomination up to this point, but the Hillary Clinton campaign has just gone from questionable, to irritating, to utterly ridiculous. These comments by Geraldine Ferraro, especially considering her own history, are not only unconscionable but flat-out stupid. Exactly what was she hoping to accomplish with this, other than making Hillary's campaign look even dumber and more desperate than it already is?

This MI/FL mess is just a distraction and it's damaging to the Democratic Party. Above all, I'd just like to have a candidate that we could rally around and focus on winning in November, both the Presidential election and down ticket, and Hillary has just become delusional at this point. Even if MI/FL were to hold expensive re-votes, it wouldn't change the delegate math-- there are plenty of African-American voters and college students in Florida to balance out those retirees from NYC, and besides, Obama has done quite well throughout the South. (For the ballots cast the day of the primary, Obama was just about at parity with Clinton-- despite not having campaigned there, despite college students staying home across the board.) As for Michigan, that's basically an Obama state. There wouldn't be a big delegate shift in either direction. So even with a revote, we'd just return right back to the status quo ante, but with the Democratic Party having uselessly pissed away precious time for organizing against the Republicans and even more importantly, many tens of millions of dollars-- resources desperately needed for competitive races throughout the nation-- all for the sake of reaffirming the delegate count that we have already.

Decisions have consequences, the MI/FL primaries were moved and the inevitable consequences kicked in-- no delegates, the candidates weren't allowed to campaign there, Obama not even on the Michigan ballot. The easy solution is just to do what Chris Dodd suggested, i.e. splitting the delegates 50/50 between Hillary and Obama, or even better-- just concluding this needlessly protracted nomination process already, publicly acknowledging the fact that Obama has an insurmountable lead, officially awarding him the nomination, and then seating the FL/MI delegates to discuss their state's concerns at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

A large and growing number of Democrats I know are so angry at Hillary right now, that they'll never support her, ever, for any elected office. These aren't Netroots types or Bloggers either-- some professionals and proud latte- and cappuccino-sippers, but for the most part, just working Joes and Janes, many working-class, union people, blue-collar. They're just sick and tired of Hillary's charades now and her delusional fantasies at this point, especially about the way that her delusions and arrogant campaign are damaging the Democratic Party in general and hurting candidates for all offices for November.

The superdelegates will not go against the majority that Obama has in pledged delegates, popular vote and states-- the Democrats may have a peculiar talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but they do not have a death wish per se, and going against the pledged-delegate and popular vote majorities would be instant self-destruction for the Democrats. African-Americans would permanently turn away from the party en masse and in rage, progressives would bitterly leave, young voters-- the future of our party, and who don't have nearly the kinds of party affiliations that earlier generations did-- would stay home and realize that the Dems are as corrupt, if not even more so, than the GOP. The superdelegates know this.

In addition to this, Hillary's past fundraising scandals with Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, Charlie Trie and others have so much dirt to be mined, the GOP would devour Hillary Clinton and spit out the bones-- the media would do it for them! Then there's Hillary's hesitation at disclosing her tax returns, the White House records, the Clinton Foundation archives, the dealings with the corrupt government and mining company in Kazakhstan-- all of these things are going to come out eventually by law, even without the GOP pushing to have them released (which they're already doing, in fact), and Hillary's hesitation on just clearing up the mess and having it over with, show again how politically blundering she is despite her supposed 35 years of "experience" (most of that as a political spouse and with the singular failure of Hillarycare and the Iraq War vote as its most defining moment). People on the street are growing more suspicious, and Hillary's hesitation at just dealing with only feeds the suspicion.

Many of us in my circle were willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt before, but she's just damaging the party irrevocably with her idiotic prolongation of this process.

We haven't considered the damage that the lawsuit from Peter Paul-- Hillary's former supporter who has launched a $1 million complaint against her-- will be doing to the party. Hearings will begin in October!

Hillary needs to have enough maturity and respect for the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement, to step down. I have no doubt that she has the potential to be a great Senator, right up there with the best of them. But she will destroy her entire political career and irreparably damage the Democratic Party if she foolishly continues like this.

Posted by Sara Cohen | March 12, 2008 9:09 AM

Todate, Obama has not taken a single strong stance on anything. All that he has said is that he wants to change the way goverment does business. Bush said the same thing, "we need to change the tone of Washington," in his first elections. Look where that got our country.
Obama is all gad and no gas. When push comes to shov, he votes "present."

Posted by rodney | March 12, 2008 11:15 AM

Thank God for House Dems decision! We can not afford months of litigations over a flaud mail-in vote system.

Posted by Sheila C | March 12, 2008 11:17 AM

While I do agree that the FLA delegates must be seated, I can potentially see numerous opportunities to fraudulently skew the results if a mail in vote was held.

split the delegates equally and let the candidates battle it out in the remaining contests.

Posted by Theard V | March 12, 2008 11:28 AM

Fred Couples, I said that no white candidate three years removed from the state legislature and with no notable accomplishments would ever be considered a serious candidate. You cited Lincoln as a counter-example. He is indeed an exception, but remember that he got less than 40% of the popular vote and won only because the Democrats split into two parties, North and South -- the country soon split the same way. However, I'll grant you that he was a great president despite his lack of experience.

I can't say that I knew Abraham Lincoln or that he was a friend of mine, But Obama is no Lincoln.

Posted by Frank | March 12, 2008 11:42 AM

ProfNickD: Bush v. Gore set no precedent, true, but I simply referred to its substance, namely, the state of FL in the 2000 race violated the principle of equal protection when it engaged in multiple recounts using multiple standards, all of them violating the state's (previously established) election laws.

No. The state of FL had no "previously established" statewide standard for recounting votes. That was the problem, according to Team Bush. The state laws (I got into this debate originally while it was happening 7+ years ago, so I've forgotten the relevant statutes, but I could look them up if you like) said that a candidate could demand a recount, which Gore did as was his right by existing law. But, the law did not prescribe a method of recounting, it was left up to the precincts.

This whole "changing the rules in the middle of the game" meme was 100% pure GOP kaka-poo. Its simply not true, Gore wasn't trying to change anything. He was just trying to avail himself of his rights by existing law. The "changing the rules" thing was used, to great effect, by the GOP in driving the whole "Gore's trying to steal the election" media narrative. Apparently, it had the desired effect, since you're repeating the fallacy 7 years later. :)

If Bush v. Gore were allowed to set precedent, it would pretty much mandate national election standards. Because couldn't the residents of the various states all make the claim that their votes aren't being counted or recounted the same as those in other states? The electoral college itself does not conform to the equal protection clause, since the residents of the less populous states are over-represented. e.g., a vote cast in Wyoming is worth more in terms of delegates than a vote cast in NY. The constitution itself is inconsistent at this point when viewed through Bush v. Gore.

There's no way the majority in Bush v. Gore wanted to open that pandora's box. They just wanted to get Bush into the White House and that's all. Thus, the little "present circumstances only" zinger. Thanks SCOTUS! You guys rule!

Posted by David Eoll | March 12, 2008 11:51 AM

David Eoll, SEVEN Supreme Court Justices, not five, found that the standardless recounts occurring in selected Democrat controlled counties in Florida violated the equal protection clause, but only five agreed to the remedy of halting the recounts, i.e. the mining of under-votes. The U.S. Supreme Court decision was "rough justice" to prevent a bare majority on the Florida Supreme Court from stealing a presidential election, obviously an unacceptable result in a nation of laws.

Posted by E. O'Neal | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

robert ethan, can you describe yourself (age, height, weight, career, hobbies, favorite movies, ice cream flavors, gang affiliations, etc.)? I am starting to get really curious about what lurks behind your posts.

Posted by T.K. | March 12, 2008 12:43 PM

"If (DNC chairman) Howard Dean thinks the candidates are not going to campaign in Florida, he's got to be insane - not with all the Florida money at stake, " said state Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate, sponsor of the early primary bill. A quote from the st. pete times... heres the link:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/28/State/Earlier_Florida_prima.shtml WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

Posted by Brady | March 12, 2008 1:12 PM

Why would anyone imagine the House Florida delegation has a say here? Its a state party matter, they don't actually have a vote.

I am somewhat tired of Obama supporters saying that the rules are the rules then promptly propose changing them. The rules allow the convention to seat whoever they damn well please. Always have done.

I am also somewhat tired of being told that the superdelegates must observe the popular will and then that they must also commit now before the contests are over. What they are really saying is that they just want their guy declared the winner before it slips away from him. Having said that the superdelegates should not count they then demand that they deny PA and Puerto Rico their vote.

The rules have always allowed for a do-over and that is what is going to have to happen. The alternatives are

1) Do not seat the Florida delegation and give the GOP the state in the general election

2) The bogus Obama compromise of splitting the delegates 50:50 as if this is not exactly the same as not seating the delegation at all. Suggesting that one merely makes me think people imagine their opponents are idiots.

3) The 50:50 penalty, if Dean and the DNC had not been idiots this would have been the original penalty. Don't make a threat you cannot make good on. New Hampshire and Iowa were never worth it. Problem is that its impossible at this stage.

4) The do-over

5) Seat the original delegation.

Obama's people are opposed to the do-over because they now realize that they might well do worse in a redo than they did first time round. This is especially the case in Michigan.

Posted by PHN | March 12, 2008 2:02 PM

My suggestion for this mess - UNSEAT , RE-ELECT ALL elected officials from MI & FL democratic party for moving their primary date out of sequence.

Elected officials in both states knew the consequences..

Seat the delegates with a 50-50 split.

Do not undermine American voters in both states.

Posted by PK -Texas | March 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Obama knows that if he loses Pennsylvania big in six weeks and then loses re-votes in Michigan and Florida, the superdelegates will throw him overboard.

Posted by E. O'Neal | March 12, 2008 2:39 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court decision was "rough justice" to prevent a bare majority on the Florida Supreme Court from stealing a presidential election, obviously an unacceptable result in a nation of laws.

My point was that, unconstitutional or not, the FL laws were the "rules of the game" at that time. I was merely refuting this "changing the rules in the middle of the game" kaka. The FL SC ruling that Gore's request conformed with state law is totally kosher, since its not their job to see that US laws are followed, just FL laws.

Stealing? That's an interesting way of looking at it. Ironically, even if Gore's request of a recount of certain counties had been allowed to proceed, and once again this was in full conformance with FL state laws, the "rules of the game", he still would've lost. Its only when all votes were recounted statewide, which Gore did not request, would he have won. An independent analysis by the University of Chicago showed a Gore win by 60-171 votes depending on which of 4 different methodologies were used. All 4 of the statewide recounts that were examined resulted in a Gore win. So who's stealing?

Rule of law, my ass. If the 5 justice majority really cared about the rule of law, and if they felt their decision was just, then they would apply it across the board. Not just in the one instance where its going to help their preferred candidate. There are still 50 different sets of state laws regulating elections, with different methodologies used for counting and recounting, and umpteen different precincts again all with different methodologies. Where's Bush v. Gore on all that? Sorry, but I'm calling BS. If the decision was about upholding equal protection, then by all means let it do that. I'm all for national election standards. But Bush v. Gore was never about that. It was about giving Bush ten fingers over the fence.

Posted by David Eoll | March 12, 2008 2:50 PM

Hmmm... didn't the Dems under the Gore team send a few bucket fulls of lawyers to Florida in order to disqualify mail-in-ballets during the last mess?

Now ,all the sudden the mail is safe and reliable.

My bad. That was just military ballets.

Posted by Sky | March 12, 2008 3:08 PM

Ferraro said the same thing about Jessie Jackson,
Hmm...
Obviously she has a bigot problem
About Florida and Michigan, excuse me all the other states followed the rules, but these 2 states didn't in the interest of fairness why should Florida and Michigan get game changing status,thats just a recipe for anarchy in other future democratic nominations.
Someone should just pull Hillary to the side and tell her its over, she should obviously stop supporting Mcain,'i mean she is a Democrat for crying out loud.Or is she having a Goldwater revival.
How can you have a mail in when this has not been piloted and took Oregon 10yrs to perfect?
This is already a mess,legally when your in a hole you should stop digging.
I'm still for a joint ticket but whoever has the most delegates should be on top.Besides they essentially stand for the same thing as far as issues are concerned.

Posted by Andrew Kenneth | March 12, 2008 3:08 PM

David Eoll, any reasonable person would recognize the illegitimacy of counting ballots by different ad hoc standards in carefully selected counties in an effort to overturn certified election results by mining under-votes -- certainly seven U.S. Supreme Court justices thought so. Any objective observer recognized that the Florida Supreme Court was acting lawlessly as the agent of the Democrats to produce a desired result. The SCOTUS had a responsibility to stop a presidential election from being stolen by partisan judicial hacks, which, thankfully, they did.

Posted by E. O'Neal | March 12, 2008 4:36 PM

This will somehow end up being Hillary Clinton's fault. Just wait and see.

Remember when we used to joke about everything being Bill Clinton's fault, according to the right wingers? Now, when anything and everything is said to be "Clinton's fault", we have to ask which one.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Posted by Carolyn Kay | March 12, 2008 6:42 PM

Just to add some levity to the whole insanity of HRC banging her head on this wall: She was the only one on the Democratic ticket in the Michigan Primary, yet only carried 55% of the vote (the rest opting for "none of the above!") Why does her campaign believe that a re-vote is in her best interests in any conceivable way? Or are they only pursuing Florida where she could conceivably garner a few extra delegates?

Posted by ToolmanQ | March 13, 2008 3:57 PM

Another consideration in this is that many Florida voters have previously made their decisions in the precinct election. This previous decision will undoubtedly skew the results of a new election. Many voters will feel that they already made an informed decision and simply repeat that on their mail in ballots instead of participating all over again in gathering information and comparing the candidates. The problem here is that the candidates did not campaign in Florida (by agreement of all parties). So the initial voter decision was mostly made on name recognition and familiarity. Since one candidate is a former first lady, her candidacy was favored heavily by many Florida voters who did not have more meaningful information. Yet this previous decision, based on name recognition, will likely be repeated by many no matter how much information is available or presented. Do overs are not a common aspect of presidential elections, nor should they be. Otherwise, it could be reasonably argued that after the facts of the NAFTA issue with Canada were fully disclosed, many voters in Ohio might want (and deserve) a do-over to vote for a candidate based on more factual discourse.

No amount of "signature comparison" (however that might occur) or other verification of fair implementation in this process will rewind history in the minds of Florida voters so that this choice is new and fresh and important.

Posted by ruscle | March 13, 2008 4:44 PM

Splitting the votes 50:50 is the same doing nothing. That is a really dumb idea. The voters get no say. This election is way too biased between the media and this.

Posted by Kris | March 13, 2008 7:49 PM

Just use the votes they already have in Florida and go on. SOOOOOOOOOOO SAAAAAAAAAAD Obama!!!!

Posted by theonly | March 17, 2008 7:42 PM