Dean: Do FL, MI again

[Surlethe]

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said.

Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, and Florida's state party chair all are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from the previous insistence from officials in both states that the primaries they held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.

Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that it's hard to envision a scenario where the Florida and Michigan delegations are not seated at the conventions.

That would send a "very unsettling signal to the people of those states," Wolfson said.

Asked whether the campaign favored a caucus over a primary if the states had a do-over, he said it would be premature to comment on any particular one at this point.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

"We believe that vote ought to count," Wolfson said.

The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates _ including Clinton and rival Barack Obama _ agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.

But no one predicted the race would still be very close at this point in the year.

"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."

If they want to play fair, let them back in the contests, but make sure that both candidates are on the ballots. I also like that the DNC won't pay a dime for the contests.

[SCRawl]

I don't see how a thinking person could disagree with this compromise. All candidates deserve a fair bite at the apple, and they haven't had that yet in Michigan and Florida. And it's a much better way of going about things than simply ignoring the voters from those states entirely.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm glad that Dean didn't bend on the funding issue, or on seating delegates along the January lines. Regardless of whether or not you think the primary rules are stupid, setting a precedent for simply breaking them and getting away with it because your a Speschul Swing State is not good if you're the national party.

[D.Turtle]

BREAKING: MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee Member

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

If this is true, this is extremely good news for the Democrats in general and very bad news for Hillary.

My advice is to look for Florida to do something similar.

[Coyote]

The Obama campaign released its money figures for the month of February and raked in $55-million. In one month. That makes Hillary's $35-million look like preschool in comparison.

Now, remember that Obama made the pledge to take public funding if McCain does the same (and McCain kinda has to because of his own financial situation and the law he helped write, the McCain-Feingold election reform law). Since McCain has to take public election funds, limiting him to $50-million, and Obama matches that pledge, he has a lot of excess money that he needs to either get rid of or lock away for another election.

He could ride to the rescue and offer to pay the DNC to re-do the caucuses with his February take alone. Why would he? Hils already has an advantage there since when Florida and Michigan printed their ballots, hers was the only name on there-- so she got "all" the votes. She's been championing their states ever since, trumpeting how important they are, blah blah. But if Obamna floats the money to the DNC...and rides to the rescue of all those voters, that should level the playing field...

[Rogue 9]

If they want to play fair, let them back in the contests, but make sure that both candidates are on the ballots. I also like that the DNC won't pay a dime for the contests.

If anybody wanted to play fair, they'd have all the primaries on the same damned day. Florida and Michigan had a damned good point when they did what they did; under the current system they were being rendered irrelevant, as are all the other late voting states, our own included. This year's close race is unusual in the extreme; during most election cycles it's all over but the screaming by Super Tuesday, leaving over a third of the states completely out of the race.

[D.Turtle]

Now, remember that Obama made the pledge to take public funding if McCain does the same (and McCain kinda has to because of his own financial situation and the law he helped write, the McCain-Feingold election reform law).

This is not true. Obama never pledged to take public funding if his opponent did - he just said that he would be willing to talk about it.

The fact of the matter is, it would be quite idiotic if he would take public funding, in the face of the funds he is raising.

The only one who has problems in regards to public financing is McCain, because he is trying to opt out of public funding after,among others, securing a loan with the promise to take public funding, and saved millions by having requested public funding and thereby automatically being on the ballot in some states.

Oh, by the way, McCain raised $12 Million in February (in the entire campaign up to the end of January he raised a total of $54). In other words, Obama has raised in a single Month almost as much as McCain has raised in his entire campaign.

[Guardsman Bass]

If they want to play fair, let them back in the contests, but make sure that both candidates are on the ballots. I also like that the DNC won't pay a dime for the contests.

If anybody wanted to play fair, they'd have all the primaries on the same damned day. Florida and Michigan had a damned good point when they did what they did; under the current system they were being rendered irrelevant, as are all the other late voting states, our own included. This year's close race is unusual in the extreme; during most election cycles it's all over but the screaming by Super Tuesday, leaving over a third of the states completely out of the race.

That the system is retarded is true -but that's not really the issue right now. The issue is that instead of trying to protest it with the DNC, or get with the other big states to protest the historical favoritism of Iowa and New Hampshire, they basically decided to play political chicken with the DNC, and hope they could get away with it (I don't exactly recall the party leadership in either state shedding any real tears when this got underway last year).

[Fire Fly]

What the fuck is it with Florida? Every fucking presidential election, there is always some sort of drama that that fucking state has to drag up (no offense to the board members who live in Florida). I'm so tired of all the shit that goes on there. Elian Gonzalez, Terri Schiavo, Gore v. Bush, breaking DNC rules.

[Guardsman Bass]

I ought to qualify my position. What was the response of the Floridian Democratic Party to the move-up (the move-up was done by the Republican-dominated legislature)? If they made a serious effort to stop this so that they wouldn't have to break the rule, but couldn't, then I would seriously want to either count their delegates or work out a funding arrangement for a primary do-ever.

As for the DNC, it's possible that they simply can't afford to pay for a do-over in both states.

[irishmick79]

This probably won't end well for anybody. If the state democrats have to front the costs for a new election, that just means that there will be less money in the coffer for the actual campaign against McCain. That could be crucial considering that MI and FL are key swing states.

Bottom line is that the democrat leadership in Michigan and Florida had their heads up their ass when they tried to move up their states on the primary calendar, and everybody is paying for it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Oh, the Democrats in Michigan certainly did - but the Floridian decision was made by the Republican-dominated government. I think the Florida Democratic Party actually tried to sue to get them to stop, but they lost. Or maybe not - I'm trying to find out if they collaborated on the decision or tried to resist it.

Personally, considering how much money both Democratic candidates are and probably will be raking in, they ought to just split the cost between the two of them. Hell, Obama drew in $55 million in February alone; $15 million for a Florida do-over (and that's assuming he pays for the whole thing, which wouldn't happen) is painful, but far from crippling - and I bet it would be tremendously good PR.

[irishmick79]

Oh, the Democrats in Michigan certainly did - but the Floridian decision was made by the Republican-dominated government. I think the Florida Democratic Party actually tried to sue to get them to stop, but they lost. Or maybe not - I'm trying to find out if they collaborated on the decision or tried to resist it.

Personally, considering how much money both Democratic candidates are and probably will be raking in, they ought to just split the cost between the two of them. Hell, Obama drew in $55 million in February alone; $15 million for a Florida do-over (and that's assuming he pays for the whole thing, which wouldn't happen) is painful, but far from crippling - and I bet it would be tremendously good PR.

I agree that the right thing for them to do would be for them to just split the costs of a new election and do the thing over, but realistically I don't see how that's in either of their interests at this point. Hillary's 'victories' would finally be exposed for what the empty victories that they were, and considering the Obama surge she might lose a new election, or at least not have the wide margins of victory she enjoyed the first time around. I doubt she'd want to spend her campaign money on a venture which might ultimately cost her some delegates.

Obama already has those delegates off the table and he has the lead, so why would he want to potentially hand his opponent additional delegates at this point? Admittedly, I think Obama has slightly more to gain than Hillary does in a new primary election, but he still would be running a big risk in letting those delegates count if they're already in Clinton's column.

At this point, I see Hillary having the most to gain with things staying the way they are - she can claim victory in those states, claim to be fighting for the voters there, but ultimately she wouldn't have to spend resources in those states again during the primary cycle and would be able to offset her spending disadvantages elsewhere. The status quo doesn't really help Obama the way it can help Hillary, but it doesn't hurt him that much either.

[Glocksman]

Hillary: no 'do over' in Florida and and Michigan

US News' Ken Walsh asked Hillary Clinton about the possibility of "do overs" in Michigan and Florida. Clinton responded:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

So there you go. The train wreck remains on schedule.

As for the 'Florida Democrats forced by evil Republicans' meme she's parroting, it's simply not true.
When the law that moved the date forward passed the Florida House unanimously, the claim that the FL Democrats were forced is ludicrous.

[Surlethe]

That would be a great disservice to the two million people who turned out and voted -- with one of the chief candidates not even on the ballots?! You know what would be a really great disservice? Formalizing and recognizing those primary elections without giving them the option of voting for the other main frontrunner in the elections. That is disenfranchisement: leaving no recourse for the people in those states who do support Obama to endorse him.

[D.Turtle]

To be fair, both candidates were on the ballot - they just weren't allowed to campaign there. Its no surprise that Clinton is opposed to having a revote - her lead would be significantly smaller in a revote with some actual campaigning beforehand.

[Glocksman]

To be fair, both candidates were on the ballot - they just weren't allowed to campaign there. Its no surprise that Clinton is opposed to having a revote - her lead would be significantly smaller in a revote with some actual campaigning beforehand.

In Florida, but HRC was the only candidate in Michigan and IIRC, 'ucommitted' won 40% of the vote even then.

[Stravo]

Frankly why are we having a primary season that goes on for months? Why numerous Super Tuesdays and other such "event" primaries? Wouldn't we have avoided long drawn out slugfests that threaten to divide the party by having it all on one day - or hell all in one week - and just have it over with? Wouldn't it save money so that all the candidates are spending money to get it done in one week?

Wouldn't it fight corruption since you don't have to worry about raising money for an entire huge election cycle thus hampering this hunger for money that may drive some campaigns to do questionable things to get it.

However, as an Obama supporter I have to point out something that cuts against this argument - momentum. If the election were held on one night or week would Obama have benefited from a build up of momentum and overcome Hillary's initial "heir apparent" title? It gives you something to think about.

[Glocksman]

Stravo, the counterargument is that it may increase corruption due to the expense of fighting a nationwide contest all at once instead of in initially small steps.

Personally, I think that the solution lies in regional primaries spaced one month apart or something along those lines.

If nothing else, it'd rid us of the spectacle of every fucking candidate genuflecting at the altar of corn subsidies and 'biofuels' in Iowa every four years.

[HemlockGrey]

There's no need for a primary system at all. We could just have a French-style presidential system, where multiple party members are allowed on the ballot, and we have a national election in November. The French then have a runoff if no-one takes a clear majority, but we could simplify it even further by allowing instant-runoff voting. No idiotically undemocratic primary season, it shortens the campaign season, slashes the amount of the money necessary to campaign, and most importantly of all might put all those assholes on cable news out of a job.

[D.Turtle]

In Florida, but HRC was the only candidate in Michigan and IIRC, 'ucommitted' won 40% of the vote even then.

Right, sorry, I somehow swallowed that part.

So, second time is the charm:
In Florida both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, but didn't campaign.
In Michigan, only Clinton was on the ballot (and "uncommitted").

[Flagg]

In Florida, but HRC was the only candidate in Michigan and IIRC, 'ucommitted' won 40% of the vote even then.

Right, sorry, I somehow swallowed that part.

So, second time is the charm:
In Florida both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, but didn't campaign.
In Michigan, only Clinton was on the ballot (and "uncommitted").

No, Clinton actually went to Florida on election day. So she most assuredly did campaign there.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly why are we having a primary season that goes on for months? Why numerous Super Tuesdays and other such "event" primaries? Wouldn't we have avoided long drawn out slugfests that threaten to divide the party by having it all on one day - or hell all in one week - and just have it over with? Wouldn't it save money so that all the candidates are spending money to get it done in one week?

Wouldn't it fight corruption since you don't have to worry about raising money for an entire huge election cycle thus hampering this hunger for money that may drive some campaigns to do questionable things to get it.

That's always been my big problem with drawn-out campaigns. You have primaries which last longer than our federal elections.

However, as an Obama supporter I have to point out something that cuts against this argument - momentum. If the election were held on one night or week would Obama have benefited from a build up of momentum and overcome Hillary's initial "heir apparent" title? It gives you something to think about.

On the other hand, a short campaign also doesn't give time for manufactured slogans and memes to really sink into the voter subconscious via sheer repetition, like "McCain is a straight shooter" or "Clinton has a ton of experience" or "Obama is just an empty suit with charisma".

[Patrick Degan]

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

Translation: "I'm not going to risk Democrats in Florida and Michigan changing their minds on me now."

[SCRawl]

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

Translation: "I'm not going to risk Democrats in Florida and Michigan changing their minds on me now."

I can't really believe that anyone would expect her to say anything else. In her own mind, she knows that the processes weren't fair, but she's not going to start being honest with us. She's a politician.

Incidentally, when she says that she "won't accept a caucus", does she mean that she won't accept it personally, or will file a lawsuit if they try it?