Oh For Pete's Sake, Just Hold a re-vote in Michigan Already

Look, I know that conditions are less than optimal, since a certain number of dem-leaning independents may have crossed over to vote for McCain, but Obama's not going to lose a Michigan re-vote by more than fifteen points, which would move his margin in Michigan from net -80 to net -20 or so. He might even win it, which would help eliminate the Clinton Team's "big state" argument. There's a decent chance that Obama could end up with a delegate lead, but not a Florida-and-Michigan proof delegate lead. A re-vote in Michigan virtually forecloses that option under even the worst of circumstances. There's no downside here; just do it already!

Comments

[Crissa]

The 50-state plan seems to have a little flaw... What happens when we really do need all fifty states? Spendy.

Still, I don't see the state's reticence as reasonable when the campaigns and other organizations say they'll help foot the bill. Heck, I'd kick in my buck, too, just to make sure the question gets answered.

If anything this election shows... It shows that name is important, substance is important, having made the right guesses is important, having a good inspiring speech is important.

I really think the two candidates need to start talking to each other about how to appropriate each other's methods for the general. Apparently the majority of super-delegates don't feel appropriate putting their vote in until all the regular folks have voted... So they won't decide it for us until July. Either way, we have two candidates with huge numbers of supporters and huge bonuses in different directions.

[weboy]

It seems quite likely at this point that we won't have the redo... and then what? Never mind what I think about this in terms of it being useful to Clinton... are we really prepared as a Party to say that our selection shouldn't include two of the most populous states? Can we afford - especially in Florida - to say to voters "thanks, but your votes don't count?" It really does boggle my mind. If we have a "50 state" strategy it strikes me we need a 50 state process. And blaming Clinton for how this has shaken out, it seems to be, belies the broken primary process and the absence of solutions from the DNC that would have helped to sort this out sooner, with a more sensible plan... and a better result.

[low-tech cyclist]

As an Obama supporter, I'm all for a Michigan revote, combined with the 'half-Nelson' Florida solution, assuming FL superdelegates only count 1/2 votes each as well.

We need to include those states somehow, Nelson's solution reduces the FL loss to a 19 delegate margin, plus 50% of the FL superdelegate margin (which is better than Obama would do under a revote), and if we do a MI primary, then Team Obama will organize Michigan the same way they've organized a bunch of other states, and will lose MI by a handful of delegates at worst. He goes in to the convention with a lead of well over 100 pledged delegates, and probably some good momentum amongst superdelegates as well.

[Shock Mouse]

The reasons Obama wouldn't want a revote are obvious:

1. If you say we need a revote for legitimacy's sake, you foot the bill. $5 million to hold the thing, another $10 million by each campaign spent in running a campaign in the state, and who knows how much allied group money. Especially when, due to polling, we know that it won't have any effect on the overall delegate totals. (Yes democratic legitimacy is important, but find me the person who's willing to fork over $25 million or so for democratic legitimacy.)

2. Why do you trust the HRC campaign? I particularly don't get this half-nelson crap, but even with revotes, why wouldn't HRC just ignore the compromise or revote, and push to get the original delegates seated anyway. Because it would be dishonest and go back on the deal she agreed to? Have any of you been paying attention to their actions so far? In which case, why would Obama people want to stick their neck out for weird compromises that will be even harder to defend on the convention floor when Hillary pushes for a 80-0 Michigan delegation.

3. This is a zero-sum game. Any deal that's good for Obama is not going to be supported by Hillary. And vice-versa. And at a $25 million cost for the potential nominee, the three possible outcomes are: bad for Obama good for clinton, vice-versa, and bad for both. So no way the two campaigns are ever going to agree to go for it.

4. Lastly, I don't really see why this whole revote even needs the campaigns consensus. If the legislature of Michigan wants to go forward with it, and the DNC pledges to allow those delegates, then go for it. In fact, any election FUNDED by and AGREED by the candidates would smell pretty bad to me.

[Shock Mouse]

Oh right, and

5. "We need to hold a primary for a state that violated rules and won't effect the delegate outcome in order to protect democratic legitimacy" but "a lot of Democrats and independents who thought there would be no primary, not to mention anyone else who is disenfranchised in this shotgun primary" are just the cost of doing business.

I realize no election is perfect, but that's why we have rules beforehand. Once you start planning election rules in the middle of a highly controversial political campaign, NOTHING gets decided based on fairness, it all gets decided bast on who the decider favors.

[Joe]

Obama doesn't want the revote for the same reason that Clinton does want it -- it extends the meaningful primary season into June. I think the plan now is to get blown out in PA (so lose by 15 points and 25 or so delegates), win NC handily, draw in Indiana, and then say "I'm still up 150+ delegates--it's over" by early May. Putting Michigan on the calendar means that this thing isn't over until mid June.