Re-Vote In Florida and Michigan: The Cost

If you're Hillary Clinton, how do you propose to pay for two primaries costing a total of $20M?

1. Propose to jointly fund them with Barack Obama through a grassroots, online fundraising drive. This would be sexy and hard for Obama to say no to.

2. Recognize that state parties can take soft money, and convince labor unions to foot the bill. (Not sure if labor would be willing, but...)

3. Rely on the generosity of Gov. Charlie Crist and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. (Crist offered to pay for a primary and then backed away from his offer.)

Comments

As a resident of Florida, I have no desire to see a revote. What a waste!

Besides politicos, I do not think people really care. They public is hardly outraged. They are more annoyed about the rapid decline of their houses and high homeowner's insurance.

Posted by chris | March 5, 2008 5:39 PM

I think this would be a pretty damn tough sell for Obama to make to his supporters. Take me for instance. I've given money to his campaign and will likely continue to do so, but there's no way in hell I'd pay to allow Hillary Clinton a chance to further flout the rules.

Obama needs to start hitting her over the head with this and call her what she is: a cheater.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 5:40 PM

I think this would be a pretty damn tough sell for Obama to make to his supporters.

Particularly given that you could run a caucus for a lot less.

Posted by alkali | March 5, 2008 5:47 PM

Can't the $20 million come from the pile of money Bill makes on speaking engagements?

Seriously, at some point the Clintons have to pay for SOMETHING. They're known cheapskates.

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 5:47 PM

If you don't pay your taxes on April 15th you don't get a 'do-over', you get a penalty. Florida and Michigan Democratic Party leaders, empowered by FL and MI Democrats, willingly violated DNC rules. They don't get a 'do-over', they get a penalty. The first response of the the DNC was an offer to help fund a caucus that would meet the terms of the DNC rules that both Florida and members of the Clinton campaign agreed to in advance. FL Dem leaders spit on that offer. The second response was a penalty, the stripping of delegates.

I think reporters like yourself need to re-examine what a fair and open process means in politics, government, and in all aspects of our society. If it means making things up as you go along without regard to precedent then what is the point of having reporters? How the hell can you report on things like Enron accounting or Iraq WMD intelligence if you have zero standards for what is and isn't a rule and what is and isn't valid information.

The hard truth is FL and MI violated the rules of the DNC on purpose. Why is assumed that letting the sanction stand is a bad outcome? Because powerful people say otherwise? Powerful people said Enron was a great company and that Iraq had a nuclear program. These powerful people were full of shit. And reporters did very little to challenge their assumptions.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 5, 2008 5:50 PM

If you are Hillary Clinton you let obama keep running around saying over 2 million dem voters don't count.

Once again ambinder forgot to tell us what obama would do so I'll help out. obama will keep running around saying over 2 million dem voters don't count. Right now he can pretend his boneheaded move taking his name off the MI ballot doesn't matter and obama can pretend FL would vote for him. Should there be another election in each state, something that won't happen, obama will have two more losses to his credit.

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 5:53 PM

#1: I certainly wouldn't contribute this. Florida and Michigan had the chance to participate fully in the primary like every other state by playing by the respective party's rules. Incidentally, imagine how much more exciting and crucial those two contests would have been if the states had left them where they were! Karma, hilarious and delicious.

#2: Uh, OK. Why labor, out of curiosity? Why not any other industry or interest group? This is kinda like your random "two key precincts" from yesterday. (How'd those turn out, by the way?) Sure, labor could foot the bill, but is there a rationale I'm missing here?

#3: I'm not sure there's a state in the union more poorly equipped to waste money like that than Michigan. Granholm's political career is indeed over, but there are some legislators who would probably like to keep their jobs, and I doubt that they're going to go for this.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 5:54 PM

I'm starting to think that hadenough is even more of an obsessed, single-issue poster than I am, and that's saying something.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 5:56 PM

The parties that are responsible for Michigan and Florida violating Democratic Party rules should pay for it. No candidate that complied with DNC rules should have to foot the bill for their actions.

And as an Obama supporter, I'm not going to support Clinton's blatant attempt to circumvent her agreement. At least not until she publicly acknowledges her role, if any, in Michigan and Florida moving their primaries forward, AND, that her advocacy on their behalf is in violation of her written agreement with the DNC.

Posted by Keith | March 5, 2008 6:19 PM

Obama will not be able to get away with a legalistic argument. Florida and Michigan have a whole bunch of African Americans, and Julian Bond has already come forward and said they should count. At some point, Jesse Jackson will be speaking out on this, I suspect, and if he says that those voters don't count, he'll be toast--and he'd rather Obama be toast than him.

No way do black leaders agree with legalisms and rules. They'll demand a revote or a seating of the delegates. Either way, Obama loses.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 6:22 PM

@Cal: You really think Obama is checking for Julian Bond? You really think ANY African-Americans are listening to Julian Bond? Puh-leese.

There's no way that Obama should have to pay for Florida and Michigan. The DNC might be able to convince them to a caucus now -- that the DNC pays for, and caucuses are much cheaper than primaries -- but there is absolutely no reason why Obama pays for their cheating.

Posted by C.Michol | March 5, 2008 6:27 PM

"I'm starting to think that hadenough is even more of an obsessed, single-issue poster than I am, and that's saying something.

Posted by Jeff Larson"

You know like? Do you ever wonder why ambinder constantly picks on a possible dem nom for president? Take this post for example. Hillary won FL and MI why in the world would she want $20 million dollars to re-run elections she has already won? Moronic. ambinder treats his reads like rubes. Of course he should know his readers.

And obama is running around saying over 2 million dems votes don't count. Whether you like that or not there's your guy.

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 6:32 PM

I'm with Keith -- I too see no reason to support Hillary's efforts to cirsum... cersum... get around her pledge to abide by the party rules.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 6:32 PM

Cal:

Rules are in fact rules (yes, even black political leaders follow the rules). Perhaps Julian Bond should have spoken up back in August 2007 when Michigan and Florida decided to flaunt DNC rules. Perhaps Jesse Jackson should have spoken up then. Or perhaps the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties should have thought about the reprecussions of playing high stakes political chicken. They gambled and crapped out.

Only parties that lose are the parties that gamble.

Posted by Keith Hussein | March 5, 2008 6:36 PM

There's no way this re-vote concept can work without creating more controversy and another debacle for the Democratic party. Crist wants it just for that; he knows it would mess the Democratic party up even more. As for Granholm, she just wants more attention for Michigan, but doesn't realize the folly of this.

For starters, the cost is huge and would most likely be paid by the taxpayers. That's asking a lot.

Then there's the confusion: how many people would even know about such a new primary, or get the dates right? There's possibility for disenfranchisement.

There's also the issue of fairness for all of the states. FL and MI in essence decided to violate the DNC rules. Giving them a re-vote now would only reward these states for breaking the rules, even after having been warned.

Also, giving these states a re-vote now would in essence lessen the importance of the states that played by the rules. For instance, PA would not be so happy, since their significance would be diminished.

All in all, there is no good way, but probably the best way, with the least amount of damage to the party, is to keep things the way they are. Then when a nominee is decided, just split the delegates 50-50.

Posted by com | March 5, 2008 6:39 PM

Hey Marc,

When you gonna cover this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

The most blatant example of bona fide race baiting yet by the Clinton camp?

I know it's awfully "hot," but it's strange that you haven't even touched it.

No matter. Kos isn't afraid to cover it. Check it out.

Posted by Darkie | March 5, 2008 6:50 PM

I want to know why it is that Florida is being punished because the Republican govenor signed legislation moving the date of their primary. The Democratic Party had nothing to do with the change of the date as far as I know. I guess I'm missing something in all of this.

And can someone tell me why it was okay for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (and I believe Nevada) to move their primaries and they were not punished? And why is it that Obama and John Edwards took their names off the ballot in Michigan but left them on in Florida?

And can someone tell me what the purpose of the punishment is? What fiasco has Howard Dean and Donna Brazille created? I just need to be enlightened here. I can only assume the DNC wanted Super Tuesday to be even more super than it already was and they told the states how they were going to hold their primaries. I thought voting issues were state issues (except in Florida in 2000 when it became a federal issue) and so I'm not sure how the DNC has the right to tell states when and how to hold primaries.

And Howard do you think for those people who care in those states they are going to vote for your candidate? Maybe Marc can shed some light on this for me.

Posted by Sue | March 5, 2008 6:59 PM

Rules are not "legalisms." If Florida and Michigan voters have a quarrel with the fact that they have no delegates, they should blame the people they elected, who idiotically pushed to have elections prior to the date permitted party rules. Prior to this process getting started, the party ruled that MI and FL would have no delegates. You can't change that after the fact. You certainly shouldn't allow votes to count, when candidates did not meaningfully campaign there. And you certainly should reward them by playing an important role in the climax of the race.

And, Cal, I don't see black folks in Florida and Michigan clamoring because their votes will not "count." Julian Bond doesn't speak for most black folks.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 7:05 PM

Let's use Bill clinton's payout from Ron Burkle!

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120097424021905843.html

It's $20 million....PERFECT!!!!

Posted by RKA | March 5, 2008 7:10 PM

Obama should come out and say seat Florida and split the cost for a do-over in MI. He would look like a leader, and he can win MI.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 5, 2008 7:10 PM

And, Cal, I don't see black folks in Florida and Michigan clamoring because their votes will not "count."

They don't have to. It will be the black leadership who will do so. And after fifty years of using black leaders as a proxy, the press won't stop.

Obama should come out and say seat Florida and split the cost for a do-over in MI. He would look like a leader, and he can win MI.

That would work, but he won't win Michigan.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 7:26 PM

Cal, I don't follow. Black people have clearly not followed the established black leadership in this election. So, why would their trumped up claims of "disenfranchisment" have any relevance here. You're saying that private organizations who purport to speak for black folks, but who actually do not, should be allowed to speak for black people. The NAACP has no more relevance here than Greenpeace.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 7:56 PM

I like the idea of both of them doing a grassroots campaign to raise the cash for FL and MI.
I was under the impression that the DNC allows certain states, e.g. Iowa-South Carolina, for press and party building purposes before Super *Duper* Tuesday (Iowa and New Hampshire because of tradition, and South Carolina and Nevada for minority inclusion).
FL primary was moved by the Republicans to screw the Dems. What I am confused about is why MI went and shot itself in the foot on this one, isn't MI a state controlled by the Dems?
Anyways.... Rules are rules. Dean and other DNC members though are saying there is a way to do a re-vote inside the rules, then what is the harm?
I am not a member of an organized political party, I AM A DEMOCRAT!!!
I think the slogan of the season should now be, "Vote Early And Often !!!!"

Posted by Mat | March 5, 2008 8:11 PM

A dual "grass roots, online fundraising drive" is a pipe dream. The Obama campaign could agree to help set it up, but who is going to contribute to it except for Hillary supporters?

And for what point are we reholding the primaries? At best, Hillary will gain a share of delegates from Florida and Michigan, not all of them. So people would have paid $20 million to allow Hillary to gain another 10 delegates.

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 9:19 PM

Cal, I don't follow. Black people have clearly not followed the established black leadership in this election. So, why would their trumped up claims of "disenfranchisment" have any relevance here. You're saying that private organizations who purport to speak for black folks, but who actually do not, should be allowed to speak for black people. The NAACP has no more relevance here than Greenpeace.

Julian Bond was called on the carpet about this FL/MI mess, in Black radio, Black talk radio and the Black Blogosphere. This was brought up as a reason to strip him of his Chairmanship of the NAACP. The Black Community isn't listening in the least to the likes of Julian Bond, who, like the rest of the HHH, are shills for Clinton.

Posted by rikyrah | March 5, 2008 9:34 PM

How about a caucus? Wouldn't that be a LOT cheaper. No machines, fewer election officials, smaller time frame. Of course Hillary will complain about caucuses because she can't organize. But it's the only inexpensive way to solve this.

Posted by Elrod | March 6, 2008 12:05 AM

Obama would have a decent chance to win Michigan. It's similar to Ohio, but differs in ways favorable to Obama (doesn't a part of the state like greater Appalachia, slighly more African-Americans, the UP is probably more like Northern Wisconsin then it is like any place in Ohio). So I suspect that either he would lose by single digits (with little delegate loss) or win (with bragging rights in a big state similar to ones that Clinton has won).

Posted by ikl | March 6, 2008 1:39 AM

Hillary doesn't want a re-vote under any circumstances. In a re-vote, both candidates would campaign, and while Hillary might well win both states, she wouldn't win them by nearly as much as she did when she was running against nobody in Michigan and against a non-campaigning opponent with inferior in-state name recognition in Florida. She can't come close to winning the nomination with the kind of close delegate split she'd get in two new contested primaries. She needs the big delegate split she gets by seating the delegates just as they are, in violation of the party's rules and of her own written pledge. If you see her start talking about wanting a re-vote, understand that it means the same thing as when she says she'll get around to releasing her tax returns and that she "wants" Bill to release her First Lady phone records from his library. She'll say she wants it and she'll make damn sure it never happens. This is how she works. Haven't you noticed? If Obama wants to make her life impossible, he'll come out in favor of a re-vote and offer to pay for the whole thing with his own campaign funds.

Posted by rph | March 6, 2008 2:26 AM

While the cost might be $20 million in these two states, what is the potential benefit? The reason they moved their primaries up in the first place was greed. They tried to cash in on all of the media spending and travel spending early, before the race was decided on Feb 5th. Now when it seems like they still matter, they want to try to cash in again. I think that the whinning about how much it will cost is just that, whinning. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

Posted by Al, KS | March 6, 2008 10:47 AM

If all this re-vote business falls favorably for Hillary, Obama should refuse to run as Vice President. If Hillary runs against McCain without Obama her chances are not good. Then if McCain wins. The nation will know they could have had a good President if it weren't for the sinister dealings of Hillary.

Posted by Wesley Selix | March 6, 2008 3:48 PM

1. Propose to jointly fund them with Barack Obama through a grassroots, online fundraising drive. This would be sexy and hard for Obama to say no to.

Can the Clinton Campaign afford $10-$12 Million, and still have enough left over to buy ad-time and hold rallies?

Posted by Michael | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM

Don't change the rules.
Do not seat the Florida and Michigan delegates!
Therefore, Obama needs to keep quiet about super delegates. They've always been able to vote however they wanted to. This rule, he wants changed, though. So he wants to change the super delegate rule but not the FL/MI delegate rule.
hmmm.. can you say, double talk?
I am really glad that OH and TX popular vote went to Hillary. I'm curious what else we'll start finding out about the "let's hope for change (only when it benefits me)" guy as the primaries continue.

Posted by bay5410 | March 6, 2008 7:47 PM

Have Bill ask the Sheik of Dubai to foot
the bill for the redo. Problem solved. I'm
sure he'd agree that that is what friends are for!

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 12:57 AM

We need to focus on winning in November. Agreeing to a re-do would be crazy-making. The rules should not change in the middle of the game. The candidates should not support raising money for a re-do and certainly tax payers shouldn't pay it nor should my money that I have contributed to a particular campaign. Any money generated should go toward winning in November.

Posted by Michelle Mendoza | March 7, 2008 9:12 PM

We need to focus on winning in November. Agreeing to a re-do would be crazy-making. The rules should not change in the middle of the game. The candidates should not support raising money for a re-do and certainly tax payers shouldn't pay it nor should my money that I have contributed to a particular campaign. Any money generated should go toward winning in November.

Posted by Michelle Mendoza | March 7, 2008 9:12 PM

We need to focus on winning in November. Agreeing to a re-do would be crazy-making. The rules should not change in the middle of the game. The candidates should not support raising money for a re-do and certainly tax payers shouldn't pay it nor do I want to see money I contributed to a particular campaign go toward this. Any money generated should go toward winning in November.

Posted by Michelle Mendoza | March 7, 2008 9:14 PM