« 2008 Texas Democratic Primary Results Map | Main | Catholic League to John McCain: Reject and Denounce Hagee's Bigotry Now »

March 05, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe

"The Clintonites and the governors would look silly if they turned it down."

Why on earth would the Clintonites accept this proposal (I mean as a practical matter -- they would, of course, say that they liked it, but ultimately work to tank it)?

If they ran legitimate, head-to-head primaries, Clinton would probably only gain 10 delegates or so, 20 max. This won't nearly be enough to catch up to Obama, and it probably takes away the best cover that she could give to superdelegates -- "Yes, he's in front by [say] 100 delegates and 500,000 popular votes, but if you factor in Florida and Michigan, both of those totals flip to Hillary's favor."

weboy

I think the problem in all of this isn't the posturing between candidates; it's the question of how you explain to voters who voted in Michigan and Florida that a do-over is needed, and then explain how a different outcome is somehow the more correct one - and I know it sounds easy from where we sit now, but take a moment to consider a variety of mischievous outcomes, and how they affect the overall race. If the results were wildly different (and I'm not necessarily convinced they would be), it seems like more questions, not less. A Florida redo that involved advertising, debates and the rest would be expensive not just in terms of the costs of holding it, and given Florida's election problems, quite possibly a can of more worms waiting to unfold; while Michigan - the easier case - would dredge up more discussions of economics and NAFTA, which may not be the best issues to serve as a lead-in to the convention. I suspect that if the Obama people called the Clintons bluff, all we'd get... is a do-over; I don't see the Clintons as being afraid of a re-vote, even if it's not their favorite outcome. And we probably will have do-overs, since everyone seems to be lurching in that direction. I just think we should be careful about what we're wishing for, and that includes the Obama folks. A do-over that doesn't help them will be a do-over they're stuck with. But just as pointedly, we're here because there's really not a good answer for any of this - the DNC shouldn't have played chicken with two states it knew very well had key roles in the nominating process, and now we're stuck with flawed results from two primaries. Does this mean we will always do over results we don't like? Does it get us any closer to a better primary process? All I'd ask, if we wind up embracing do-overs, is that we be clear on why we're doing it, and why the situation is exceptional... and figure out how to not repeat it. Because really, on an objective level, election do-overs as policy is just a really dumb idea.

majkia

Look, we voted here in Florida. We don't want to vote again. We voters had no say in when the primary was set for, that honor goes to our asshole Republican legislature and governor.

We had a fabulous turnout. We had an energized elecorate. And thanks to the assholes at the national level - and we all know who they are - the thing is now a total mess.

Michigan is a bit different, but here all parties were on the ballot, so our votes should count!

Joe

"I don't see the Clintons as being afraid of a re-vote, even if it's not their favorite outcome."

See, I guess I totally disagree here. It's not that they're scared about it, it's that they are in a better position right now. If they re-do the two primaries, as I said above, my guess is that Hillary wins by 10-20 delegates and maybe 200,000 votes. My guess is that they'd prefer to have the 111 "tainted" delegates and 600,000 votes. Even if they don't count, they go a lot further in providing superdelegates with cover to flip the pledged delegates.

low-tech cyclist

Look, we voted here in Florida. We don't want to vote again.

Look, you knew at the time it wouldn't count. If pulling that lever when you knew it was meaningless wasn't too hard for you, then pulling it a second time when it counts can't exactly tax you too much.

low-tech cyclist

My guess is that they'd prefer to have the 111 "tainted" delegates and 600,000 votes.

Maybe they would, but they're saying the exact opposite right now - that they'd welcome do-overs in both states.

So yeah, Obama should call their bluff. Not only is it a no-brainer from a tactical standpoint, but a 50-50 split of the costs would soak up a larger portion of Clinton's bank account than of Obama's.

ikl

I'm all for revotes. But I would like to do Michigan soon. Michigan is like Ohio except better for Obama (3% more African-Americans and without the culturally Southern part of Ohio, but with the UP which is more like Northern Wisconsin than it is like any part of Ohio). So it should be either a win for Obama or single digits for Clinton (since she won Ohio by 10%). Unless Obama collapses in which case he has got big problems anyway. A win in Michigan could take some of the sting out of Ohio and Texas.

ikl

Hint of a problem for Clinton in Michigan: exit polls show that she got 30% of the African-American vote in the fake primary. That won't happen again. She only got 55% of the vote. African'Americans were 23% of voters in the fake primary.

litbrit

Re: mischief factor. In Florida, you can only vote for your party in the primaries. In other words, Republicans can't show up to vote for either Dem. candidate, and Independents can't, either. Only registered Democrats can vote in a Democratic primary. Plenty of Democrats did NOT vote (and take the time off work or rearrange schedules, etc.) in the "beauty contest" because they knew going in--they were told, in no uncertain terms, actually--that their efforts and vote would not count.

To my mind, the only way to get a true picture of what Florida's Democrats want is to have a do-over with the assurance that this time, votes will count.

The comments to this entry are closed.