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.

Obama currently has a lead of 150 delegates, last time I checked. If the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated, that gives Hillary 178 delegates and the lead. (If Obama can lead in delegates by more than 178, of course, this all becomes moot). The DNC has set up a situation where, no matter which candidate wins the nomination, the other can plausibly claim that the win was illegitimate. Hillary can claim that Obama only won by suppressing votes. Obama can claim that Hillary only won by breaking and changing the rules. This is exactly the nightmare scenario that the Michigan and Florida folks begged the DNC to consider when they were asking them to stick to the rules as written and only cut down their delegations by half instead of exceeding the rules (which they had the option to do) at Donna Brazile’s behest and giving them “the death penalty”.

The DNC could have followed their own rules and simply reduced Michigan and Florida’s delegations by half. Instead, they chose to create a delegate nightmare and toss two key states into McCain’s column. The disaster was both predictable and predicted.

As for a re-vote, I think it’s a nice thought but it’s never going to happen. Too many arguments about money and type of election, two candidates committed to opposite goals – one getting the delegations seated as-is no matter what, and another to keeping them locked out. The DNC blew it and now they are just going to have to live with the consequences of their actions.

Campaigning for President seems to be more important to Senator Clinton than actually using the power she holds now to uphold and defend the Constitution. If she doesn’t do it now, why should we expect her to do it when she has even more power?

Can’t go for that.

I’m a Hillary supporter, and I think the Michigan results should count. It’s very clear that there was absolutely no requirement for Obama and Edwards to take their names off the ballot, and I happen to believe that it was done for strategic reasons. But the notion that they did it because they really, really supported the DNC’s decision, while Hillary only kinda supported it, is pretty weak. Especially since Obama clearly committed more violations of the agreement in Florida, where I guess his support for the DNC wasn’t quite as robust.

Giving the uncommitted votes to Obama is ridiculous, as is spltting evereything 50-50. It’s interesting that Obama supporters are so concerned about the purity of the process, yet their solution is to award votes to Obama that he never earned. If you think about it, all Hillary is asking for is to get the votes that were actually cast for her.

With the turnout in Florida at record highs, and everyone being on relatively equal footing, the results there should stand, as well. Obama supporters seem to think that only Obama voters stayed home because they thought it didn’t count. I’ve yet to see any rationale for arguing that Obama was at a disadvantage in Florida. As a matter of fact, I think his TV ads gave him an advantage.

I recognize, however, that this is an argument that totally favors one side, particularly in Michigan. I don’t see how there can be any solution except for a revote. For those claiming that Hillary ”broke the rules,” or wants to ”change the rules,” it would help if you knew which rules you are referencing. The DNC decision specifically stated that both states could appeal to the credentials committee for reinstatement. Hillary has urged her delegates to vote in favor of the appeal. Exactly which rules is she supposed to be breaking here?

You know what’s not a rule? That if neither candidate gets to the convention with 2,025 delegates, the nomination automatically goes to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. That’s not a rule. That’s called ”neither one of you won.” Despite how the Obama campaign tries to portray it, both candidates will be looking to the supers to put them over the top. He needs them as much as she does, and you can bet Daschle and Kennedy aren’t engaging in the ”new politics” as they arm twist the supers. And neither is the Clinton campaign. It’s called politics.

The Florida legislature voted House Bill 537 to move forward the date of their state’s primary to January 29th with bipartisan support: 118 to 0 in the House, 37 to 2 in the Senate.

The Florida “Dims” (and I, as a Democrat, use that term quite appropriately in this case) who voted for this Bill, the Party leaders, and Superdelegates should be forbidden to participate at the National Convention. I would suggest the DNC could seat the regular delegates, but only allow non-party leaders to sit as delegates. If some State Rep is a delegate they have to give their seat over to someone else. No relatives or staff-people allowed, either. They should select someone at the District level.

But by accepting the new date (which the Party leaders actually did want, and saw the Republican decision as a way to argue that they “had to”) it took away any chance at litigation. Now they have to fund their own election.

If the DNC is compelled to cough up the $$$ for a authorized election, or has to seat delegates, there must be a “price”.

I’d suggest, right off the bat,

a) disaccrediting all the Superdelegates and Party Officers from Florida and Michigan. This would allow the elected delegates some voice (however structured) but make those at the higher levels who were involved, or should have stopped it, lose their voice. That voice was a “privilege” and given that they have created both a huge financial and political headache for the Party they deserve to lose that voice. Party hacks could not circumvent this by becoming “elected representatives”.

b) Both slates of delegates should be selected proportionate to Statewide %. Thus, in Florida, Edwards delegates will get approximately 15% of the vote even though he might not have reached the necessary quotas in any district. Obama will receive about 35% of the delegates. Clinton about 50%.

b) compelling Michigans “Undeclared” to not vote for Clinton…but be allowed to support any other delegate on the first ballot. Afterwards all delegates would be released.

c) If the elections don’t take place for replacement delegates then the DNC could also consider something like what the Republicans allowed. They could allow 50% of the delegation (proportionately divided, and less the “party hacks”) to participate in the first vote, 75% in the second cycle, 85% in the third, and 100% if there are four ballots necessary. If the % doesn’t work out to be exact, round up to the nearest “body”.

this whole thinbg sucks. There is no way on God’s green earth te State is gonna or should pay for this bullshit. People here don’t wanna pay taxes for anything,the economy is in the shitter and there is a huge revenue shortfall. Sorry, I disagee Jane. The election we did have sucked but both candidates pl;ayeed by the same rules. Having a do-over has nothing to do with fairness. If obama had won here, obviously the candidates’ positions would be reversed. It’s about gaining an advantage. The peroposed mail-in do-over arguably will wind up undercaoting or leaving ouit some voters and probably disprortionately por ones that BO would be expected to win. i don’t know if that’s true, but it’s` just going to be eanotherr mess. We should stick with th mess we have.

Who’s to blame for BO not being on the ballot in MI? Presumably he’ll get a bunch of teh undecides who are really anti-HRC, or else they would have voted for her.

Hate to say it, but Bill Clinton’s right on this one.