A re-vote is completely within the rules, submitter.

I wonder how they're gonna spin this one. Are these states Obama's likely to win? If so, then it seems the DNC is starting to favor Obama. Otherwise...

Just a guess...

xanadian: I wonder how they're gonna spin this one. Are these states Obama's likely to win? If so, then it seems the DNC is starting to favor Obama. Otherwise...

Well, in Michigan's case, if he gets even a single vote it'd be more than what he got.

Not a big fan. They shouldn't get to count at all.

As long as both candidates get to re-campaign there, whatever.

The possible alternative, that the voting results from the previous primaries would just get counted - considering that the Hildebeast was the only name on the ballot - was pretty farked up.

A recount would be valid and would keep both sides from biatching about these states. This is the only fair way to do it. I dont care who wins as long as they are nominated and not appointed.

Actually I take back that part about no biatching from either side. Primaries are more expensive and require more time to put together than caucuses, so it would seem more likely that a re-vote would be a caucus. We have already heard biatching about how caucuses are unfair and benefit Obama more, so Clinton's side will probably still biatch about the results and say that the first results are the only true results, they just will appear more like sore losers than anything else at that point though.

Boo.

Someone is going to be unhappy either way. I'd go for make the people who knew the rules and broke them unhappy.

so whats the problem people are having with michigan or florida holding a new primary that follows the rules?

Better than not counting them at all.

This was the only real choice the Dems had.

That's cool by me. A real primary/caucus in which everyone is on the ballot is good.

Though I really think they should stick by the original rule. If someone breaks the rule they get punished. Tough titties otherwise.

Re-voting an election always sounds more than a little sketchy to me.

Cagey B: Re-voting an election always sounds more than a little sketchy to me.

Persistent Runoff Voting is the latest thing.

/Darned PeRVs

I'm OK with that. But I'm really starting to suffer electoral burnout.

Just look at all the overlapping greenlit topics. I can't remember which is which. And I'm a politics junkie. What effect will this prolonged, tense race have on the average voter?

As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

Tom_Slick: As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

In Florida it was the Republican legislature that forced this issue. They moved the day up, they have some responsibility in this.

Fantastic way to waste more tax-payers dollars. The states' primary dates should have been worked out with the Democratic Party in the first place. They shouldn't have held a contest at all until everyone approved of some common ground.

Though, honestly, if we don't want to disenfranchise the voters and are ignoring economic considerations, a re-vote is the most fair option.

raanne: so whats the problem people are having with michigan or florida holding a new primary that follows the rules?

Money

Tom_Slick: As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

Agreed - though the national party isn't going to pay a dime. So now it's the state parties that have to fund it; I'll be interested to see how they try to pull off a $6 million primary out of thin air.

Bleh.

No reason to follow any party rules in that case. Which I guess isn't all bad....

Tom_Slick: As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

Because they were told what the outcome would be, but chose to break the rules anyway.

xanadian: I wonder how they're gonna spin this one. Are these states Obama's likely to win? If so, then it seems the DNC is starting to favor Obama. Otherwise...

Just a guess...

obama will take Michigan easily. Florida to Hillary. So probably a wash.

AgeOfReason: In Florida it was the Republican legislature that forced this issue. They moved the day up, they have some responsibility in this.

They were sanctioned by the RNC as well. Besides, it's not like the Dems were actually making a fuss about moving up the date. They didn't think the national democrats would actually pull their delegates. Too farking bad. It should not be the taxpayers problem.

Apart from a few quibbles (how they determine who may have double-dipped in the Republican pool), this makes perfect sense.

The only question is how Hillary will spin this so she looks like the Great Savior of Florida and Michigan's Honor, while fighting to prevent it from happening (since it wouldn't help her at all).

Shaggy_C: pull a off a $6 million primary out of thin air.


I thought you were from Chicago? Right? Didn't you guys used to be experts at this sort of thing?

This is fine if they give Barack a head start campaigning equal to the amount of time Hillary spent in Florida after they all agreed not to campaign there.

They should just honor the original rules, not seat anybody, and give the money that would have gone to these new elections to the party's campaign chests for November. Why do both candidates have to waste all this money to campaign there, why do the two state parties have to waste all that money to hold revotes after they insisted on disenfranchising their own constiutents, why do we have to encourage the two candidates to go negative on each other through June, etc.? The candidates didn't insist on disenfranchising the two states, the state parties did.

If anything, the only action the DNC should take is find new leadership for the Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties.

DarnoKonrad: I thought you were from Chicago? Right? Didn't you guys used to be experts at this sort of thing?

That was before my time...and that would be 'pulling votes from the grave', not 'out of thin air' :P

AgeOfReason: Tom_Slick: As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

In Florida it was the Republican legislature that forced this issue. They moved the day up, they have some responsibility in this.

Not a single Democrat in the Florida legislature voted against it. Not one. World's smallest violin is tuning up...

i think them two should have to compete in someway...and the residents in that state can call in their vote....
maybe arm wrestling or eating contest, or who can hold their breath longer or speeling be or talent show....

There are ten million reasons not to do this, but that gets spent on a campaign in a day.

The only reason not to do this is because the primary season is in endgame right now, and frankly, as long as both states are re-dos the numbers are going to come out to be a wash.

140 delegate lead. 14 state lead. 600,000 more votes. We all know how it's going to end.

FarkFish: speeling be

I lol'd

Longtime Lurker: obama will take Michigan easily.

Michigan's last vote was an open primary. If they stick with that, Republicans will be able to come over and influence the Democratic vote, after all, there's no reason for them to vote anymore.

If they close it independents such as myself who did bother to vote last time would suddenly find ourselves shut out.

Personally I don't think a revote would do any good up here, just split'em or say "sorry, you're stuck with it".

/Michigan voter
//thinks the whole thing sucks no matter what.

Lawnchair:
The only question is how Hillary will spin this so she looks like the Great Savior of Florida and Michigan's Honor, while fighting to prevent it from happening (since it wouldn't help her at all).

This

Any system that excludes the participation of Florida is bound to improve our electoral chances. Can we exclude them from the general too?

/there's a Florida tag for a reason
//oh yeah

Mr_H: Longtime Lurker: obama will take Michigan easily.

Michigan's last vote was an open primary. If they stick with that, Republicans will be able to come over and influence the Democratic vote, after all, there's no reason for them to vote anymore.

If they close it independents such as myself who did bother to vote last time would suddenly find ourselves shut out.

Personally I don't think a revote would do any good up here, just split'em or say "sorry, you're stuck with it".

/Michigan voter
//thinks the whole thing sucks no matter what.

This 'redo' shiat sounds like a nightmare. Lawsuits. biatching. God Dean is stupid.

I understand that I don't understand a lot of the rules of these proceedings but does this seem like a major cock up to anyone else, like more than in recent elections?

Is it because it's closer than it's been in a while and they don't know how to handle it or are they just making this shiat up as they go?

Mr_H: If they close it independents such as myself who did bother to vote last time would suddenly find ourselves shut out.

The party is under no obligation to give a shiat what you non-members have to say.

Can't we just stick them both in the "Big Brother" house and give them biweekly challenges wherein they have to face a panel of judges who will ultimately decide nothing while swaying the voters, who will be voting via text message?

We could even just stick all the Republican candidates and Democratic candidates in there...maybe get Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn to be guest judges.

Mr_H: Longtime Lurker: obama will take Michigan easily.

Michigan's last vote was an open primary. If they stick with that, Republicans will be able to come over and influence the Democratic vote, after all, there's no reason for them to vote anymore.

Usually once you have voted in one, you have lost the right to vote in the other in the same year. I would guess that a lot of these voters voted in the earlier Primary.

maotig: Lawnchair:
The only question is how Hillary will spin this so she looks like the Great Savior of Florida and Michigan's Honor, while fighting to prevent it from happening (since it wouldn't help her at all).

This

Hillary already spun it. She stayed on the Ballot and argued for their inclusion. Guess who looks like the 'bad guy' that wants to rip people off their vote?

Running a-puck: raanne: so whats the problem people are having with michigan or florida holding a new primary that follows the rules?

Money

nah - its not money. Michigan wont pay for anything. But we might do a caucus, which is paid for by the DNC...

when it comes down to it, the DNC was always going to seat these states, but they weren't going to let them "count". Once the "winning" campaign had enough delegates to be decided, the DNC was going to suddenly let MI and FL count. unfortunately, things didn't work out that way, and there wont be a clear winner, which means that MI and FL wont be allowed to count after all.

Holding a primary or caucus which follows the rules (since as far as the DNC is concerned the first one didn't even happen, which means this isnt' really a re-vote) is just a way to not lose two swing states in the real election.

If they can figure out a way of doing it so that it wont cost the states money, I dont see how there can really be an objection to it.

kitty cat girl: Can't we just stick them both in the "Big Brother" house and give them biweekly challenges wherein they have to face a panel of judges who will ultimately decide nothing while swaying the voters, who will be voting via text message?

We could even just stick all the Republican candidates and Democratic candidates in there...maybe get Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn to be guest judges.

It's why the FX network was made.

raanne: so whats the problem people are having with michigan or florida holding a new primary that follows the rules?

MI and FL broke the rules and held early primaries because they wanted a disproportionate influence in the selection process.

A do-over would effectively give MI and FL... a disproportionate influence in the selection process.

Here's a question I haven't seen asked:

Is it even possible to hold a full primary in time? Seriously. The logistics, absentee voting, etc. And I'm unclear about why anyone is taking the states' side on this. Both parties said "do not have your primary before this date or else" and when two states did, they were penalized. Pretty cut and dry.

That being said, accepting the results as is couldn't be stupider. In fact, it's delusional to make that case. If someone came up to you and declared that they had won the Boston marathon because they drove from point A to point B at 3am the week before the race, you would look at them like a crazy person.

xanadian: I wonder how they're gonna spin this one. Are these states Obama's likely to win? If so, then it seems the DNC is starting to favor Obama. Otherwise...

Just a guess...

He might pull off Michigan, but not Florida. Too many Nazis, Jews and Depends Dinosaurs with their panties around their ankles for Hillary. The key in the revoting is that you end up with something like Texas. Lots of pretty fireworks but no change in the end.

Tom_Slick: As long as the party pays for it not the tax payers I say why not.

This is the other bit of genius. By putting the bill with the taxpayers and not the party (Dean said the DNC is not paying so the money has to come from somewhere), he's pretty much guaranteed that the FL and MI Dems should drop the issue or face a Republican in the fall who uses this as an issue in the campaign.

In all, it's a nice subtle fark you to Clinton, and MI and FL Dems. The message is man up and get behind the lead candidate or face a serious challenge in November.

xanadian: I wonder how they're gonna spin this one. Are these states Obama's likely to win? If so, then it seems the DNC is starting to favor Obama. Otherwise...

Just a guess...

Michigan had 40% undecided against Hillary. So he would have a decently strong position there.

Florida is the land of detached old people, poor whites, and latinos. He'd get killed there.

DarnoKonrad: It's why the FX network was made.

Exactly. Maybe get Simon Cowell and Wolf Blitzer in there too, just to really mess stuff up.