Senator Obama can draw a sharp distinction between himself and his opponent (if it isn't sharp enough already!) by advocating a re-vote. One candidate believes in winning honestly and fairly, the other will do anything to win. Supporting a re-vote (possibly against his own self-interest) would clarify the fundamental difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton.

Posted by Be Good at 02/19/2008

Posted by BE GOOD 02/19/2008

Supporting a re-vote (possibly against his own self-interest) would clarify the fundamental difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton.

Agreed!

As a Florida voter I feel somewhat disenfranchised by the DNC's arbitrary ruling. There was a big turnout here across the board. Obviously voters in a state with the nation's fourth largest population would have some impact on the final delegate count.

I have to believe that votes in Michigan have similar sentiments.

The fair solution would be to reschedule the presidential primary for, say, early April. That would give candidates an opportunity to campaign and discuss the issues in front of voters. The outcome could be substantially different from the first primary given this scenario--or not. The DNC should consider this option.

Posted by jackwells at 02/19/2008

Sorry. Previous post sucked. Too tired to articulate properly.

WaPo just declared Obama winner in Wisconsin--across the pond from Michigan!!!

Posted by jackwells at 02/19/2008

We are native Michiganians. Michigan has been protesting the primary schedule for two election cycles. The basic objections are states later in the primary cycle get to vote for the left overs of unrepresentative states. Some rebel at eating other's left overs. I don't care if Michigan goes to Denver or not. We would not vote in a re-vote, anyway.

Posted by cyclezealot at 02/20/2008

Let the people have a legitimate primary!

Posted by Rese at 02/20/2008

"Would not vote in a revote."

Interesting.

What if they staged a primary & no one showed?

Might be safer & less humiliating to stick by the rules now, then change the rules in '12.

Obama needs to find a strong un-Billarylike way to handle this.

Posted by sloper at 02/20/2008

Missing option: seat Florida's delegates, but either hold a new election in Michigan with DNC money or don't seat the delegates. Barack Obama and John Edwards weren't on the ballot in Michigan.

Posted by bransby at 02/20/2008

Option 3 is not an option, no matter how much Hillary would love to game the system and circumvent Democracy, that isn't what our party is about.

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26280565

Posted by bridoc at 02/20/2008

I believe at this point, we must follow the rules that were set. A parent cannot tell a child that they cannot do something and then not follow-through with the discipline when they disobey. Although, in this case, perhaps this is more a lesson for the party to not to jump to punishments that they cannot (or will not) enforce.

Posted by law1234 at 02/20/2008

We resent other states eliminating our real choice before they get to our state's primary. Not interested in voting for a finalist, but someone we really believe in. Since our candidate has been eliminated by others for us. And have major differences with the finaliist. We just would choose to not vote in a re-vote. Some care about the horse race. Others want the process to mean something.

Posted by cyclezealot at 02/20/2008

Seat the delegates. But Obama and Clinton split the delegate counts exactly right down the middle.

Posted by bkjj40a at 02/20/2008

Seating delegates and splitting them is not counting them in the first place.

Rules are set and we need to start following them. This is why many people have become independent or republican. We say one thing but then can not follow through.

Posted by jp3 at 02/20/2008

CYCLEZEALOT, If you were really from Michigan, you would no there is no such word as Michiganians! The correct term is Michiganders.

Posted by Some Chick at 02/20/2008

when is it ever right to disenfranchise voters? howard dean should be ashamed of himself.

democrats need to carry florida and michigan in the general. shall we pick and chose which cotes we want to count?

avoid another hanging chad: seat the florida and michigan delegates!

Posted by belle25 at 02/20/2008

None of the above. elected delegates should be seated with the understanding that their vote will be evenly divided, superdelegates should be seated without prejudice.

This should be done in order to insure the full participation of the state parties in November.

Posted by JFHill at 02/20/2008

The primaries in each should be rerun, as primaries, not as caucuses. That is the only way to rerun the vote. Caucuses disenfranchise a lot of voters.

Posted by sallythewal at 02/20/2008

NJ and Michigan should not have been allowed to hold a primary. Neither should Calif, NY, NJ, Texas, Ohio, etc. etc. Only Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina. And that's it. Why? Because holding primaries in all those states means candidates have to pay a fortune in advertising and promotion costs, it forces candidates to campaign over a ridiculous number of months while they are away from the jobs they were elected to, and costs the taxpayers of each state millions to hold elections. Either have a two or three day national primary or leave it to the small population states to hold primaries.

Posted by bean22 at 02/20/2008

The rules in this case echo the attitude of the poll taxers and the ID freaks of tghe Old and New South, respectively. Voters are being excluded from participation.

Clear heads understand that the penalty imposed by the DNC is being inflicted on the voters when , if any penalty is really called for, it should be inflicted on the Fl and MI State Democratic Committees. The 2.3 million Democrats who voted in the FL and MI primaries did not choose to defy the DNC; they voted on the only day available to them. Party leadeers are beginning to acknowledge that a real, a viable solution must be found, that the Democratic Party, the Party that believes in the notion that everybody's vote counts and that every vote should be counted, cannot retain credibility if it quashes those 2.3 million votes.

The idea of seating the delegations and splitting the delegates evenly does not solve the problem. That proposal, in effect, does not differ from the idea of not seating the delegations. I cannot see, if the delegations are to be seated, how the Florida vote can be treated except as a true count. Both candidates were on the ballot and the voters gave 49.8% of the vote to HRC and 32.89% of the votes to Obama. Both candidates abided by the dictum that they not campaign in the Sunshine State. The MI vote is another story. Barack Obama was not on the ballot. 55% of the Michiganders opted for Clinton; 40% voted for uncommitted delegates. I would assume that anybody who favored Obama voted for uncommitted delegates. I don't seewhy the 55% who voted for Clinton should be reduced in number; I would, however, say that allowing Obama 45% would be a just solution.

The DNC and the two candidates will have to work out a solution that is acceptable to the all three of the concerned parties, a solution that is not only just but also perceived as just by the electorate.

Posted by mortsel at 02/21/2008

Most voters are too stupid to even vote! They would rather vote for a light weight, smooth talking geek like Obama than think about what his presidency could do to this country. The American people are too into "American Idol" to think about the ramifications of voting for Obama. Hillary is my choice and I don't care how she wins!

Posted by magnoliat12 at 02/21/2008

Chick. I am a Michiganian. Check with the Michigan laws enacted by the state ligislature. Many Michigan residents think a 'gander ,' some kind of foul. The Legislature agreed. Legally , the state recognizes the phrase Michiganian. Still, most Michiganders ignore that lesiglative mandate and stick with 'gander.'

Posted by cyclezealot at 02/21/2008

Bean 22. Let the small states make our choices for us. No thanks. Why not just let the small states determine the nominee and then fill out the farcical conventions by selecting nominees in smoke filled rooms. But, you are right. Money determines the race as things stand now.

Posted by cyclezealot at 02/21/2008

States have the right to make laws for their own people. The high-handed, dictatorial, unAmerican diktat of the DNC to disenfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida ranks with legislation in the Reichstag. If Michigan and Florida are not allowed to vote in the Democratic Convention, the Democratic Party will have left me and I will spend $1.5 million now put away in a special fund to defeat Obama and those who want him crowned clown of the USA. No thanks. I am a democratic Democrat--not a mere ditto-head who repeats mindless slogans and lives in a fairytale. I seek reality, and want a person of experience (not just two years in the Senate doing little), who knows the world first hand, and who thinks on a global scale. I will write in Hillary in November, and get as many people as I can. I will do everything in my power to stop the lapdog of big unions and those who would destroy the USA by nominating a trainee for the top position.

Posted by Dr Arthur Ide at 02/21/2008

"Hillary is my choice and I don't care how she wins!" Posted by MAGNOLIAT12 02/21/2008 @ 05:46am

That statement perfectly reflects the mentality of your chosen candidate. Obama is my choice and I DO care how he wins. If you're willing to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, then it's time to rethink what you're fighting for.

Posted by Be Good at 02/21/2008

I'm really tired of seeing rules re-written mid process in US elections -- whichever side. So as far as I can see, the pre-primary rules should apple. Period. Just like the Supreme Court should not have inserted itself in the last election, when election law had given it no role. I work with international students, and am no longer stunned when one asks "so what did the Independent Observers say about (some or another irregularity in U*S elections)?" Now I just say that the US doesn't have IOs, but maybe we should... to keep people from changing the rules mid course.

Posted by enzo1990 at 02/21/2008

CYCLEZEALOT I have never once heard the word Michiganian, Michiganite maybe, but never Michiganian. I did check the Mich.gov webpage which specifically says: "There is no official term." Although you are right that Michiganian was used in the past, but everyone knows the correct term is Michigander now.

Posted by Some Chick at 02/21/2008

I don't think it's going to matter one way or the other. I predict that Obama will wrap up the nomination on the 4th, and Clinton will concede shortly there after. I heartily welcome the the Michigander's and Floridinians to what it's like to be an Oregonian. Take heart that you guys will matter in the general, unlike Oregon.

Posted by shadow master at 02/22/2008

The Left risks losing this election if voters of these two likely blue states are pissed off because 'they didn't count my vote' in their illegal primaries. Of course, many knew their votes would not count and so did not vote in the first place, so the results really can't be counted. A compromise must be struck. The National Democratic Party should strongly encourage their state Democratic parties to reschedule (on a obviously legal-after Feb. 4 date) and seat the new and legally elected delagates. This would make everyone happy, although it will cost the states to hold the new primaries. Perhaps the National party could chip in? Also, it will continue to discourage states from attempting to jump to the front of the line, which is the reason for the rule in the first place.

Posted by elisevil at 02/22/2008

This is another problem that can be alleviated by an Obama lead in OH and TX and a concession by Clinton. Otherwise, some group will be mightily disenchanted in the Democratic democratic system.

Posted by Staggo Lee at 02/22/2008

"a concession by Clinton."

Given the 527 ALP attack spots now being aired by Billary "supporters", concession isn't on the table.

But if Billary won't concede after Mar.4th defeats, then Billary have to go for blood, thereby alienating tens of millions of voters, diminishing the Clinton brand, lowering Bill's prospects on the great moolah trail.

Posted by sloper at 02/22/2008

As a sixth generation Floridian maternally, and an Illinoisan paternally, I wouldn't object to a "do over." But, as an earlier poster said, expected Obama victories in Texas and Ohio make this discussion moot.

Posted by lewwelge at 02/22/2008

While the decisions leading to the exclusion of the Florida and Michigan delegations were among the most stupid made by a political party in recent memory, those decisions were made and we have to live with them. No do-overs allowed. Get used to it.

Posted by Sam Thornton at 02/22/2008

I voted for Clinton last January in the bogus Florida primary, noted that her name was at the top of the list and Obama's name was way down the list next-to-last, a rather obscure way to promote her name over his. Since that time I have rejected her as my presidential favorite and turned to Obama. One of the reasons is her willingness to engage in dirty politics as she wants to have her delegates in Florida and Michigan ( where Obama was not even on the ballot) counted. This is hypocracy. She also wants to steal our Florida super-delegates. The other reason I changed towards Obama is his credibility and especially his positions on foreign affairs, which will be practical, effective aand free up moneys for improving conditions inside America. He is very inspiring, very special.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/22/2008

I understand the appeal of a do-over with fair campaigning and all, but the reality is the expense and distraction, especially if it won't really settle the nomination, is just an exercise in salving wounded egos in Florida and Michigan. I just want to know where were all these people when their state parties decided they wanted to front-load the schedule? Was it so bad to just move to Super Tuesday and stick there?

Posted by yutsano at 02/22/2008

A re-vote is the only democratic solution for now. It would be undemocratic not to consider the votes of two entire States. Also, if we don't agree with the electoral college system, perhaps it is time for the nation to think about a multiparty, parlamentry system of governing so everyone has a voice.

Posted by nursevic at 02/22/2008

The DNC should abolish itself. It represents only those who would become gods. It has no right to tell any person how or when to vote. That is the job of Congress. The DNC has outlived their usefulness and are now antiquities without purpose or merit. I have cancelled my membership with it and with the Democratic Party. Neither knows the definition of the word democracy.

Posted by Dr Arthur Ide at 02/22/2008

As progressives, our overriding priority should be rejecting the disenfranchisement of the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan. At the practical level, the 2 states are crucial to a Democratic victory in November. Of the 3 choices given in the poll, I voted for a "do-over," but recognize its impracticality. As of this writing, even if Fla. and Mich. are seated based on the primary vote, they may not be enough to give Hillary the nomination, so that may prove to be a tolerable option to the Obama campaign compared to the risk of alienating the 2 states in November. Modest proposal: pressure both campaigns to agree, in advance, to seating the 2 delegations in proportion to the pct. of delegates (either elected or, if superdelegates must be counted, total) Clinton and Obama have going in to the convention. It is fairer than counting the primary votes; introduces a new and intriguing angle to the competition for delegates; and, above all, ensures that Democratic voters of the 2 states will be represented at the convention.

Posted by Jay Skeptic at 02/22/2008

"The Left risks losing this election if voters of these two likely blue states are pissed off because 'they didn't count my vote' in their illegal primaries."

What? The left? The left isn't represented in this election, and certainly not in the Democratic Party. Don't get me wrong, I support Obama, and realize the importance of defeating the right-wing lunatics. But I have no delusions about either candidate being left. Florida and Michigan's party leaders betrayed their voters by trying to act bigger than their diapers. There was an agreement, abide by it.

Posted by Durutti at 02/22/2008

How should the dispute over the Michigan and Florida primaries be settled?

* bar the two states from seating delegates. * A do-over * seat the delegates chosen in the renegade primaries.

* None of the above. * Seat the delegates, but... (assuming that it becomes a brokered convention) * Do not allow the delegates to vote in any round of voting in which they are bound by the rule to cast their vote for a particular candidate. Only allow them to vote when their vote is 'unbound' by the rules.

The ruling that was in place at the time of the state wide voting will be upheld. But in case it becomes necessary to take multiple votes in a brokered convention the people of the states of Florida and Michigan will represented. To completely ignore these states is not rational. To require the whole state to pay for an internal Democratic Party dispute is unfair. My proposal is not perfect, but it is more equitable than the three possibilities that you have offered.

Posted by LazyBrowser at 02/23/2008

I don't live in either State but I do believe that the voices of the people from Florida and Michigan should be heard AND considered... therefore, that is why I voted for a do-over. It's not so much about what the outcome result would end up being. That issue is insignificant to what the larger issue is and that would be what happens come November for the General election. If you don't value the votes for the primary, the risk is quite high that these voters will vote Republican and cost the Democrats the Presidency. I don't think I can handle another 4 years of Bush policies or the Republican bias for the wealthy to become more so while the rest of us slide into poverty or worse.... That's why I believe a do-over is an absolute must....

Posted by AllenP at 02/23/2008

Wait until all other states have voted. If after that Michigan and Florida can be added without changing the leader one way or the other, count the votes.

Posted by jkbowman at 02/23/2008

You guys know what's awesome about this? It was Florida's repub controlled legislature that moved Floridas primary date up past Super Teusday. They attached that vote to not using the Diebald voting machines anymore, in order to insure the democrats didn't stop them. Those repubs are smart...

Posted by shadow master at 02/24/2008

The problem with the disenfranchisement argument is Obama was never on the Michigan balot. It would be inherently fair to count those votes against him. Michigan and Florid voters should deal with their state leaders for putting them in this predicament. Moreover, America is always so quick to point to Venezuela (and other non-Western countries) and the fact that for all intents and purposes, voters are given only one choice in an election. Its ironic that now we claim that democracy depends on the seating of Michigan's and Florida's delegates. Wrong. Democracy depends on intelligence and action. Those voters need to kick the ass of their state leaders in the next election. And they also need to see the inherent issues of fairness and equity before they throw their collective tantrums. They will have their chance in November - if they want to vote for McCain out of spite, then don't feel sorry for them as their (and our) lives get even worse. Remember, in past years, most states have not had a say in the primary anyway.

Posted by rasalula at 02/25/2008

I agree BE GOOD. Let the ones involved in short-changing the voters pay to re-vote and get it right.

Don't disinfranchise TWO states worth of NEW voters. Let the Americans know they count and it's not their fault the high people in places decided to dance without a partner.

Posted by yolohawk at 02/26/2008

I'm sorry the rest of the country feels like we in the state of Michigan could have done anything about this. I can guarantee: if it was your vote that was tossed away then you wouldn't be so cerebral about it.

I'm very sad that my vote will not be counted in a year when it is so very important.

Posted by madlibpoet at 02/26/2008

It seems so clear to me a re-vote should be held, despite the cost, that I'm amazed it's not the majority opinion here. Do we really want to disenfranchise those voters? Of course not. It was outrageously unfair and self-destructive of the Party to have done so, and all over the DNC's power to schedule primaries. How ridiculous! What in the hell happened to the 50 state strategy, Dr. Dean? Yet to go ahead and count the delegates when there was no contest in either state and only one name on the ballot in Michigan would just magnify the original outrage. The DNC, whose fundraising letters I won't be responding to this year, should beg the forgiveness of the voters of Michigan and Florida, and all Democrats, and cough up the funds for two new election days so we can close this sorry chapter. And begin a new one with a Democrat in the Oval Office and the Party prepared to hammer out a fairer, more rational (probably alternating) schedule for state races.

Posted by lemondrift at 02/27/2008

Frankly, I am really enjoying the irony that in an election where every state was trying to out-do each other by having the earliest -- and therefore most important -- primary, the early contests were inconclusive. Now all eyes are on the final few states to see who will have momentum going into the convention. Apparently the "common sense" that only first few primaries matter has been refuted.

If you ask me, the people of Michigan and Florida who have been robbed of their delegates in this primary need to stop pointing fingers at the DNC, which has no choice but to create and enforce rules so that an orderly election can be carried out, and instead turn their attention the lawmakers of their own respective states. These are the ones responsible for your states forfeiting your delegates, and, in keeping with our democratic system, they can, and should, be held accountable for their actions when it is their turn to be re-elected -- or ousted.

Posted by feijiefu at 02/28/2008

The question of how to resolve the matter of the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters is fallacious. These folks haven’t been made powerless by means of some capricious decision on the part of the Democratic Party but, rather, by their own choice of state representatives and, subsequently, their tolerance of ill-advised decisions made by them. This isn’t something that was done TO them -it was done BY them, to themselves.

Most voters in my state would also have preferred to be among the first to vote this primary season but we weren’t foolish enough to do so despite the very clear and obvious consequences that would have been served to us if we did so. Nor were we willing to gamble our votes away on the hope that whining and bitching would later get the rules changed.

One would have hoped that, in Florida at least, past experiences with changing the rules about deciding elections after the fact would still be in the forefront of their consciousness.

Posted by bobzilla32 at 02/28/2008

We have been robbed, as a florida voter who voted.. without question it should count or give us a do over.. if my vote won't count... nader will win my vote..

Posted by rockmall at 02/28/2008

Florida and Michigan need to be in the democratic column this fall. If you don't count their votes, the dems don't deserve to win this fall. The DNC are not Gods and neither is Obama. He would want to count those votes if he had won, if he is really interested in being President and not just running for President then he will count those votes. Personally, I would not vote for him anyway, even if he were the only name on the ballot this fall. Sorry but I just don't "believe".

Posted by hilmin at 02/28/2008

I sympathize for Florida and Michigan voters, but they should have raised their concerns a bit earlier. Maybe before the primaries? Only now that they know what a close race it is turning out to be do they start screaming. The states that vote early have the opportunity to set the tone and front runners, which is what they wanted to do, against the DNC. Now that they know what a close race it is they want to vote last and be the tie breaker. Neither voting first or last is fair to those who voted on super Tuesday. The only truly fair option would be for all states to vote again on the same day. Had one candidate dominated all the states and already have the majority of delegages, than this would a non-issue. The voters in these states while disenfranchised, are being greedy now wanting tie breaker status.

Posted by Extraneous at 02/28/2008

Speaking of "do overs," I would think that New Hampshire, Iowa, California, et al would want a "do over" should Michigan and Florida get one.

Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/28/2008

I am so sick of B.O. being identified as the fair and honest candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has paid bullybloggers online to intimidate and harass any one that even acts like they support H.C. and the mainstream media and the DNC have taken up the mantra of mr. innocent. Lies...all of it. Why can't Larry Sinclair get a fair and honest appraisal of his claims of drug use and sexual exploits with Mr. Obama. The B.O. bullybloggers, even with the help of Yahoo, have done everything possible to discredit Mr. Sinclair. I believe he is telling the truth. If he is not, I want to see the proof. Give him a fair chance or are we just going to bullyblog him or maybe even kill him to keep the story quiet. Something is going on here that the American people aren't seeing. The whole story has not come out yet. The sooner it comes out, the better for us all. Before it is too late and the democratic party is blown completely into oblivion by this smooth-talking con artist.

Posted by GayObama at 02/29/2008

I live in Florida, I voted for Hillary Clinton and would do so again. The main point here is that the Republican Party issued and either or with concerns about moving the primary. The Democrats could either keep the primary on Super Tuesday, and not have the option of the much needed insurance vote or move the primary and have that option. The democratic party was in a lose lose situation either way. It is not the Democrats but the Republicans who forced this issue and once again disenfranchised the voters of Florida. Democrats have to allow the delegates as well as Michigan delegates a seat at the convention. If not, we will lose the 2008 presidental election. We need both of those states and their delegates. The delegates should rightfully go to the one who won the states, Hillary Clinton. I am sure the reason Obama does not want this is because he did not win the states. Incidently, Obama ran ads in Florida, Clinton did not, so his "squeaky clean" image is not so clean, he too, went against the so called agreement. Obama plays the victim card well, especially when it suits his cause. Let's hope the DNC wakes up and does what is right. Give the delegates to Senator Clinton and allow those delegates a seat at the convention.

Posted by books at 03/2/2008

The way candidates in the U.S. are chosen is the most undemocratic in the "free" world. The entire process must be rethought. This state does it this way, that state does it that way, in this date or that date.......there should be one method done on one day, only then would every vote count the way it SHOULD!

Posted by jewelmick at 03/3/2008

Oh yeah well I predict that if either Hilary or Obama get elected either one of them will get assassinated because they both suck. First of all Hilary's already had two terms. Maybe not the title but who do you thing was the one running the country while Bill was sleeping around with other women. Hilary clinton! And now she's running again. If she gets elected mark my words. She will probably get assassinated. You know they do alot of good with modern make up. How else would she hide the fact that she in reality is a Jack-Ass?

Posted by B.B. at 03/4/2008

McCain all the way!

Posted by B.B. at 03/4/2008

Anyone but obama or hilary! I'd vote for my butt before I'd vote for those two nincompoops! They suck!!!!!!

Posted by B.B. at 03/4/2008

Oh yeah and if Hilary Clinton gets elected as Vice President you know what will happen. The president will get assassinated so she could be the President of the united states. So think about our Bill Of Rights and the right to Bear Arms. they might as well get rid of the Bill of Rights. I want you to think about the lifes that you are endangering by taking away the right to own a gun. first of all Hilary Clinton if your reading this the only way that a Gun free zone sign is going to stop someone if theres someone trying to shoot people is if you take it off of the wall and hit them over the head with it! Man she's so stupid. Mrs I don't know how they got onto the grounds. It was a gun free zone. Fuck you Hilary Clinton. You will never be the President of the proud United States of America. Long live McCain! Yeah. Thank you!

Posted by B.B. at 03/4/2008

Talk about the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida primary voters sounds almost surreal to me. I live in Texas and in 40 years of voting in Democratic presidential primaries, this is the first time I can remember when I felt like my vote and the votes of my friends and neighbors counted at all. Anything other than a national primary on the same day has the potential to disenfranchise voters.

Re: comments about the rules of the DNC and Dean as Chair: Dean has done more than other national party leaders for a long time to re-enfranchise Democratic voters and candidates around the country. His 50 state strategy has energized democrats in my rural county and in other Texas counties, and has helped us reach the brink of taking back our legislature from DeLay cronies. And folks, party rules are party rules . . .they may need to be changed, but how can any of us who have suffered under almost eight years of a disastrous presidency that was decided by the Supreme Court chose to change the rules in the middle of the game?

Posted by dodd at 03/4/2008