Jane!

I’ll donate to it.

Good question. Of course promoting democracy abroad is what the corporations are about. At home, maybe notsomuch.

GM and Disney should foot the bill

What Jane said. Pocket change for the foundations and the billionaires who care about democracy.

Let them pay.

I run the election for 15 million~!

Let me preface this by saying that I’d MUCH rather be talking about sex.

Maybe I’m a hard-ass, but I think that the states of Florida and Michigan should pay for it. It was their dumb-ass legislatures that got them into this mess to begin with. So I think that they should have to pay for it. Otherwise, there’s no disincentive to prevent something like this from happening next time around.

How about Florida and Michigan pay, since they were the ones who decided to move their primaries? Either that or their delegates can sit out the convention. Man, it’s like the rules weren’t clear or something…

Do I recall seeing something about Florida’s moving up of it’s primary was run through by Republicans?

Dang it!
I hate my CRS sometimes!

If both States were seated “as is” with Obama getting the undecided in MI, would anything change as far as his lead in delegates?

Let’s see you print up ballots, maybe 3 or 4 million, one for each registered dem.

You buy some big card board boxes and cut slits in them.

You arrange to deliver them to schools

You announce the day and time of the vote.

You collect the ballot boxes.

rocket science no?

You hire high school kids to count them.

If Florida and/or Michigan are going to be participating, I would think that ‘fairness’ dictates that the delegates be apportioned equally between the two candidates, and thereby saving the political dollars for future events. The alternative is that Floridians and Michiganlanders foot the cost for their re-vote. As for the non-profits stepping up to absord the cost is a non-starter.

Jaango

Maybe the lawmakers who pushed for an early election DESPITE being told by the DNC that these delegates won’t be seated should pay.

They were the ones who wanted an early election at the cost of their state not having any say. They pushed for it. Their constituency had little say in it, and lost their votes. Those legislators should be the ones paying.

They should pay for fucking up an election. Then, after finding out how close of a race it was, trying to renig on the deal. The whole thing stinks.

I am surprised Jane didn’t title this post “Pew Alert”..)

Didn’t NJ Gov Corzine say he’d pay for half of it? Thought I heard that today.

Correction for you, Jane.

that hardly qualifies as fair considering that both candidates were not on the ballot in Michigan.

Actually, Clinton WAS on the Michigan ballot…Obama and Edwards were not.

Vote counts from Michigan
Clinton 328,309
Dodd 3,845
Gravel 2,361
Kucinich 21,715
Uncommitted 238,168
Total 594,398

Correction for myself…

Guess that Jane’s post could be read a different way. I thought she meant that both were off the ballot, though I guess she meant that not both candidates were on the ballot. Sorry!

Yeah, Corzine & Rendell (PA) will raise money for half.
http://gothamist.com/2008/03/1.....orti_1.php

Bravo to Howard Dean for trying to bring some discipline to the Party. We’re always complaining how we can’t be as cohesive the Repubs, and that’s what I think Howard was trying to do by being such a hardass about “the rules.”

I heard Ed Shultz today saying the FL thing started with the Dems in the legislature, and I’ve seen this elsewhere. They tried to back track, but the FL Repubs started to realize how this could hurt Dems and made sure the date change went through. The MI problem was created by the state’s Dem “leadership.”

Each state’s Dem voters to need organize for different leaders and all anger should be directed at those who tried to break the rules. Howard Dean is not the problem here.

I wrote Dr. Dean this morning to say “set up the fund - bet we can raise the damn money in 24 hours”… put all this silly nonsense to bed once and for all…

Can anyone point me to a place that explains who was in charge of setting the primary dates in FL and MI? I think I know how Florida happened in the context of a larger election bill… But I haven’t heard, or looked for frankly, a good explanation of how it happened in MI. Thanks.

T-

Here’s another link to Corzine & voterover.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/.....038;coll=1

We burn through $20 million in 1 hour and 15 minutes in Iraq. So, in the great scheme of things, it isn’t all that much money.

If you want any kind of real security, that isn’t nearly adequate, you know that, don’t you? You’ve just quantified one of the most stealable elections ever.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has offered several times over the last few days to raise funds for half of the cost, asking Obama’s campaign to make the same pledge. Obama’s side has so far refused. Mostly because they would appear to prefer that Florida and Michigan voters be left out completely. This reflects badly on the whole “let the voters decide” meme Obama’s supporters have been spouting. But, not the voters from thwo of the most populous states. States we cannot possibly win the presidency without.

Now it is all about the RULZ. But only when the rules work one way. It seems like there are some short memories here. Three other states (NH, NV and SC) moved their primaries up and were not penalized in any way.

In fact I remember reading on all the big blogs that “of Course the delegates from those states will be seated.” Now, not so much. Dean has screwed this up royally. And anyone as freakishly biased as Danna Brazille has no business making up the RULZ. If those votes are not counted, we can kiss the GE goodbye.

As a Florida Democrat, this talk of a re-vote is insanity. Spending money in June that could be better spent in a campaign against McCain? Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. Please do not tell me about all of the voters who came to the polls in January; it was not solely because of the Primary, but rather because of an important amendment/proposition to cure the property tax crisis here in Florida. That is what brought voters to the polls. Moreover, many people intentionally did not vote in the primary, even though voting on the tax issue, because they knew they primary did not count and was simply a beuty contest. Either split the votes between Clinton and Obama, or simply seat the delegates but not let them vote on selecting a Presidential candidate. (Let them vote on the platform. LOL).

What if Hillary was out of the race? Would Michigan delegates still demand to be seated? Considering Hillary didn’t win that state, but uncommitted did, maybe they could send Hillary’s delegates to the convention, and send the others as well, but the must vote for someone else besides Hillary, since by definition, the voters didn’t chose her.

Florida is similar. Hillary gets hers, Obama gets his, etc.

Obama should start chanting about the uncommitted in MI, those committed to vote for someone besides Hillary.

Last I heard, a mail-in vote cost about five million dollars in each state. That sounds like Carter Center, Pew, Ford, and a couple other good-government types could foot the bill in each state.

No to the DNC, no to the state taxpayers, no to the campaigns.

Just mail every eligible voter (closed: Democrat; open: all voters) a ballot and tell them to vote and return it right away. Set a deadline. Count quickly. Put this away so TradMed can stop singing “Dems in Disarray”

Who made the ultimate decisions to hold the primaries early? Oddly, I’ve never even heard that question asked.

That’s who should pay. The consequences were made clear from the start.

The Rs punished FL, MI, SC, and NH half of their delegates for moving thier primaries outside the R window. NV was not a primary so no punishment.

SC voted within the allowed window set by the Dems. NH was not punished as their state law requiring it to be the first primary was always known and not a recent add-on to the mess

#24 was in reply to SanderO. If the state party rammed this through, then the state party should have to foot the bill. I live in Michigan and I am sick of Gennifer Granholm’s insistence on pushing this primary ahead against the national party’s rules. The people of the state don’t deserve to not have their votes counted, but she really deserves to have a substantial amount of the cost of this taken out of her pocket, and so do the state party stiffs who did this. They were told explicitly not to do this, and they were stupid enough to do it anyway. What a bunch of bozos. They need to re-vote this, and not any stupid vote by mail arrangement, either.

Michigan would be split evenly if this occurred. Have to consider that almost all of those who cast a vote for “Uncommitted” were not in favor of Clinton…whose name was on the ballot. In addition several surveys show that Obama and Clinton would be pretty close to splitting the vote and have been for awhile. It’s unlikely that any would get more than miniscule differences.

I’d say allow them in…but without their Superdelegates at the State level…to punish THEM for undertaking this hare-brained scheme.

Ditto for Florida~ strip them of any Superdelegates (or at least those that are involved at the State party level). But there a mail-in might be more reasonable. I think that Clinton was ahead about 20 delegates in the January vote. She might win more, or less. Hard to guess.

If the money is given to the State Democratic Party there is, apparently, no spending cap. A bit moneybags could, thus, cough up the dough to do this.

If you’re feeling like things are slow here, it’s because there’s a new thread up top asking “Should Spitzer Resign?”

You don’t have to quit talking on this thread, but I just wanted to give a heads up about the new thread, too.

Now it is all about the RULZ. But only when the rules work one way. It seems like there are some short memories here. Three other states (NH, NV and SC) moved their primaries up and were not penalized in any way.

No short memories, at all. What you are hearing is simply spin by a certain campaign to justify seating the delegations in full. NH, NV and SC all moved their primaries with the permission of the DNC, and were within the rules in doing so. There were both time-windows and an established sequence established by the Rules Committee. None of the moves you’ve cited above has violated the rules, unlike Florida and Michigans leapfrogs.

Now it is all about the RULZ. But only when the rules work one way. It seems like there are some short memories here.

Huh? It’s always been about the RULZ since last August. This has been out there and totally in the open since the DNC Committee voted on it.

Of the remaining candidates, there’s been one completely consistent throughout this whole saga.

Howard Dean is bringing some much needed discipline to the DemcratIC Party and should be applauded for it.

dakaine01 at #30 answered why the other states were’nt punished. Basically, they didn’t violate the DNC Committee’s RULZ, while FL and MI did. It’s all quite simple. Hillary is just trying to muddy the waters and find some leverage out this now.

More info here.

I’ve come down to this.

The ELECTED delegations should be seated. But the State Representatives and Superdelegates associated with any Florida/Michigan party function, any Democratic elected official AND any who advocated an early primary…banned from the Convention. BANNED!

I think the candidtates should both pay for the primaries since it’s going to give them at least what they spend in free advertisement

I think 50-50 After all, the delegates in close primaries are dividing close to that.
Having Hillary supporters raise money for this revote doesnt smell good to me.

I don’t like the idea of two supporters fundraising for it; it brings to mind Nascar jumpsuits covered in sponsorships

OT-Tucker’s being replaced with David Gregory… *groan*

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn....._79388.asp

little off topic and some news some might take as good, some might take as bad;

rove expects to be indicted by the end of the year

sounds like good news right?

wrong

rove is wrong about everything, if he maintains his level of accuracy it means he will never be indicted

pity that

I support the re-vote. So does my lady.

okk and Lahoma.

Stephanie Miller always picks the wrong weeks to take vacation…

Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. I don’t understand how Clinton can request that they get seated “as is” for that state.

Oh, I forgot to add that I’m totally behind a re-do vote but I’m not liking the financing option of Corzine and Rendell raising money for it

McCain: “Like most Americans, I visit my doctor all the time” or something like that…

Ummm….like the 47,000,000 uninsured Americans?

Obama took his name off the ballot voluntarily.

Heh, I was hoping for Rachel, tho…! But, David is as bad as Tucker…

Let’s see now. $20,000,000 for a re-vote. $15,000,000,000 per month for unwinnable wars. A projected three trilion dollars for these wars.

I’m not sure but hadn’t she promised to do the same as well?

Redo, with Obama on the ballot. Don’t know how they should pay for it though.

40% of MI Dems voted uncommitted…

Along with Edwards, Richardson and Biden. Why didn’t Hillary again?

I believe all she had promised to do was not campaign in MI which I believe she abided by. Same as with Florida

Exactly, that is why there has to be a re-do

I’m looking it up as we speak *g*
Will report back in a minute

no - she promised not to campaign (and she did not campaign there)… Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot as a campaign tactic. to help them win Iowa and to devalue the vote in MI (thinking it would have no importance).

Didn’t work out quite right, did it?

I don’t think it even matters in the primaries if there is a revote. Even if you seat the delegates Hillary still cannot catch Obama. Only the superdelegates matter know. IMO I do not believe the FLA or MI voters have been disenfranchised, because we are talking primary voting not general election.

Was the FLA primary date move up the idea of the Dem who introduced the legislative package on paper trail and re-count laws or was it an amendment by GOP? If it is GOP’s fault then make their legislature pay for it. Or just let the delegates vote how they want like supers.

Some (like Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh’s show) argue that Florida and Michigan should count “as is,

Too funny! (snicker). Nothing like objectivity when making a decision.

It was a strategy employed by those 3 candidates… they were trying to make sure they nullified the vote… which they accomplished.

Every vote DOES count and both Michigan and Florida had the opportunity to vote for something OTHER than a Republican State legislative body that then voted to impact National Democratic circumstances EVEN AFTER THEY WERE TOLD IT WOULD IMPACT THE STANDING OF THEIR DELEGATES.

Isn’t anyone else a little bit concerned that a Republican state legislation be allowed to play a role in a national Democratic circumstance?

Wasn’t the DNC decision that the delegates of those two states would not be seated?

I’m coming up with thaat she promised not to campaign and not to participate in the contests in these two states — participate would be name on ballot, no? Let me find the link

Here’s Jeralyn’s account over at TalkLeft.

ot/ bush’s new song and dance, see raw story

Those four candidates you mean? All the frontrunners other than Hillary conspired to nullify the MI vote?

I don’t agree. I think they were showing solidarity with the DNC’s decision, which was voted on by many people. I think Hillary kept her name in order to win some headlines about her “momentum” (which is exactly how this was portrayed in the BigMedia), and to give her this chance to muck things up later if needed, which is exactly what they’re doing now.

Exactly, Dean said they can plead their case to the DNC rules committee at the convention for a determination…

Corporations abroad are about supporting capitalism (but called democracy) and their own private interests. In the US, well that would be socialism or influencing elections, so maybe not. There is a lot of soft money around. Or since the Republican governor of Florida contributed to this mess, maybe his state should pay for a re-vote.

yes, I think it was a strategy… that’s fine… Obama’s got his strategy - “nullifying” opponents is what he does…Clinton is certainly entitled to play her strategy also. please see the TalkLeft link at 64…

Having candidates pay for primaries is an extremely bad precedent and smells of vote-buying.

Okay, so going back when the DNC made it’s ruling against the two states, all the involved parties said that they would not participate and campaign. Now when Michigan came around, she,Kucinich and Dodd(?) opted to not remove their name from the ballot. Why? Don’t know but I would not characterize Edwards, Obama and others decision to adhere to their initial agreement as a campaign tactic.

Umm no offense but I disagree with Jeralyn on this topic

I have to say I am thoroughly sick of the Republican Governor Crist shedding crocodile tears over this and talking about how it was all decided in a bipartisan way.

Actually, in all fairness it should be paid for by the stupid state legislatures that made this necessary.

nullifying? which opponents are you referring to ?

where in the rules did it say they had to take their names off the ballot? I just don’t get that as an argument. Not spending money on ads, not putting out campaign flyers is “not campaigning”… this other sounds like sour grapes to me.

Not campaigning can be construed as not participating. Half of the Ds took their names of the ballot in MI (their choice) and half chose not to do so. I believe it all falls under allowable campaign strategies.

I agree. My issue is the campaigns raising money to fund it, way too Nascar like for me

Old coastie, cut the BS hahahaha

It may or may not, I just wanted the wording to be clear.

I’m sorry but Hillary Clintonm took 55% of the Michigan vote. Uncommitted took 40%. Don’t know how you count, to me it looks like a win for Hillary. Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich were also on that ballot. But since Obama and Edwards both urged their supporters to vote umcommitted, Obama should not be allowed to lay claim to all uncommitted.

I’m not advancing an argument. I had heard something and I wanted to verify if what I heard was true or not. Having done so, people can make up their own minds, right?

That is precisely why a re-vote needs to happen. Let the uncommitted state who they want

No matter what the rationale, it’s comming down to a point where about half of Democratic voters will believe they’ve been disenfranchised if this nomination process isn’t perceived as being fair. I think it behooves each of us to figure out what will be perceived as the fairest process, rather than to rationalize the one that works to the advantage of our favored candidate.

Obama’s state senate run.

I have to say that I really like the idea of letting Michigan and Florida re-vote on their pledged delegates but stripping both states of all of their superdelegates. That way, the people get to vote, and the idiots who made this mess get punished.

When did Obama urge them to vote uncommtted?

I believe there are those who have contended that HRC and BO having fund raisers in FL prior to their vote was “campaigning” and their was a small uproar when Bo did a “nationwide” ad buy that included FL prior to the vote. He was given a pass when he stated he couldn’t break the FL cities out of the mix.

They’ve both done borderline items in this issue.

Why wasn’t all this sorted out early on? The DNC knew this could be a mess even if they couldn’t read tea leaves. The potential was there. I thought this was bad practice at the time. Now it’s come back to bit us in the a..

Whatever role the Republicans played in this early on, why let them have power over the DNC? Do nothing just does that - does nothing.

Her proof of Obama not having a chance in MI, so that’s why he pulled his name, is a poll from Oct showing Obama down 16%?!? In Oct, 16% would’ve been considered one of his closer races.

Whenever Obama has the chance to go head-to-head with Hillary, his numbers go up dramatically as they even did in OH (he made up 12% in less than two weeks), and TX where he has now won the delegate count, so TX should be considered an Obama win, since “it’s all about the delegates” after all.

Hillary danced around the rules with her visits to FL as well, and I’ll personally need a more convincing case to make me believe that Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden all conspired to disenfranchise the Dem voters of MI. I still think they were simply showing solidarity with the DNC, which was quite refreshing to me.

Actually, with the nominee still in question, not moving up a primary seems like a better chance for a state to have an impact this year.

When you buy nationwide, you can’t exclude markets as one can’t stop internet advertising from popping up on your computer no matter the state.

Corzine and Rendell have said they would raise money for the revote.

Corzine could just write a check.

yes, I’m sorry… it seems to be a talking point pushed that Obama and Edwards somehow did the “right thing” - something required, when really - it was a campaign tactic… an effective one, but a tactic nonetheless… there was nothing in the Four State Pledge they all signed that said word one about taking their names off the ballot…

thanks for the link. I’m waiting for it to come up so i can read

Seems like the Clintons could as well.

TeeVee stations should pay- they’re the ones who undoubtedly bribed the state legislatures to move the primaries up in hopes of baggin more advertising revenue.

They were worried that it would all be over early and no money would be spent in their states.

Yeah, that’s the irony. As far as FL and MI voters not having their say, that’s normally the case for the voters of most states. Still, we’re talking about the party staying together and I think new primaries in those states would be accepted as the fairest means. Counting them as is would be the most unfair and, based on my own feelings, lose a big block of Democrats in November.

To be fair, that is your characterization just as someone saying that the other candidates removing their names were doing the ‘right thing’ — it’s a characterization.

actually, it was John Conyers, a super delegate for Obama, who urged people to vote uncommitted.

yes, it is a characterization, but I don’t think it is inaccurate.

How bout a hooker surcharge at the political conventions- that should cover it!

I’m confused as to what this demonstrates? She backed down on a promise and he took it to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners as is the process.

A pretty impressive GOTV for Uncommitted, if you ask me.

Would Democrats who voted Republican in the Michigan primary to keep Romney in the race get to vote again? That would be two votes that count.
I think Obama should suck it up and offer to give Hillary her 55%, and take the rest for himself. That seems to me to be more than fair to Hillary, and a gracious display of diplomacy.

In the Vatican’s latest update on how God’s law is being violated in today’s world, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, was asked by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano what, in his opinion, are the “new sins.”

He cited “violations of the basic rights of human nature” through genetic manipulation, drugs that “weaken the mind and cloud intelligence,” and the imbalance between the rich and the poor.

“If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a weight, a resonance, that’s especially social, rather than individual,” said Girotti, whose office deals with matters of conscience and grants absolution.

Didn’t know that the Vatican had a penitentiary.

Then one could argue that the other characterization is no more inaccurate than your own. that is just to be fair,right?

If there are primaries in Fl and Mi in June..will they get the bonus delegates? I have not seen this discussed.

To address frontloading during the window (i.e. February 5 to June 10, 2008), the Commission recommended an incentive scheme involving bonus delegates to encourage states to hold their primaries and caucuses later in the process. The Republicans tried this in 2000, awarding a 5 and 10 percent increase in delegates to later states, but that effort did not meet with much success. The Democrats’ plan calls for awarding of larger numbers of bonus delegates, from 15 to 20, 30, and 40 percent more delegates for each of four stages: March 4-March 17, March 18-April 7, April 8-April 28, and April 29-June 10.

link

My mother called me about that this morning and all I could do was mutter under my breath

Are Hilllary and Obama bein EVIL again?

I think it is a method - nulifying your opponent - that he has used is all… and I think it bears similarity to the MI