Democrat party leaders inch toward agreement on Florida, Michigan

What a mess this Michigan-Florida business has made for the Democrats! But signs began to emerge today from several directions that some kind of bi-state compromise might be emerging.

With polls and early voter turnout auguring a very good political year for Democrats, the last thing that fragile coalition of interests wants is to be torn asunder by an enduring struggle or hard feelings by a wing supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Already the Republican nominee, John McCain, is at work on his general election team, plans and strategy while the two Democratic camps, for lack of any real substantive differences to dispute, argue over advisor's remarks, plagiarism, Ken Starr of all people and what time of night crisis calls arrive in the White House. Plus Michigan and Florida.

The problem began with the now-humorous multi-state rush to the....

front of the calendar line to hold state primaries, thinking the early states would be decisive this cycle. At least that's the way it looked way, way back in 2007. Now, with the Obama-Clinton race fairly tight, all eyes are focused on Pennsylvania of all places on April 22. So, early wasn't best after all.

Anyway, despite Democratic Party rules and warnings to protect the early status of New Hampshire and Iowa for reasons that no one outside those irrelevant states can really explain, Florida and Michigan defiantly moved their dates up.

Some state Republican parties did the same, but the GOP's punishment was to reduce, not eliminate, their delegates.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, whose own presidential campaign blew up in Iowa when he did too one night four years ago, ruled that both states' delegations would not be recognized at the convention in Denver in late August. It is, of course, ultimately untenable for either party to write off two such important states.

But almost everybody among the serious candidates played along. Most removed their names from the Michigan ballot except Clinton, who never got around to it. And they all honored the ban on campaigning in either place, although some did hold Florida fundraisers, which were allowed. And somehow, son of a gun, word got out to the media, so the cameras and reporters were there and it looked, for all the world, like campaigning to millions of viewing voters.

Clinton won in both places and even held a victory rally in Florida after the election that wasn't supposed to matter. With no Obama on the ballot, she got 55% of the Michigan Democratic vote. But, ominously, even without serious opposition fully 40% of the party voted for "Uncommitted" instead of her.

As a bargaining position, Clinton has held that both states should be counted and seated and millions of votes not disregarded (not counting Florida votes has bad echoes for Democrats since 2000). And doing so would, not coincidentally, erase much of her delegate deficit behind Obama, who opposes it.

What to do?

Another vote in both places? Expensive and both state's governors -- one Democrat and one Republican -- said public money shouldn't be wasted on a fractious party's unnecessary internecine fight. A caucus? Given his impressive record with caucuses, that clearly favors Obama and requires finding hundreds of meeting sites.

Let them fight it out before the credentials committee in August? Could leave hard feelings in the loser's camp and only two months to patch things.

Leave it to the superdelegates? How could they realistically go against the two states' documented popular vote? But, oops, those votes aren't supposed to count.

Today, as often happens on slow winter Sundays after the NFL season, more attention was paid to the Sunday talk shows by folks who weren't going to church. And there, a possible consensus began to emerge among Democrats.

The answer: a mail-in ballot. The cost: maybe $6 million, according to Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who proposed the solution and is working with Michigan's Democratic Sen. Carl Levin on a compromise. According to law, Florida's party can accept unlimited donations.

Dean on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," said mail-in ballots were "not a bad way to do this." On the same show Levin expressed concerns over security for a million or so mailed ballots but said, "Only a mail-in kind of a vote will work."

On the same program and CBS' "Face the Nation," Dean claimed it was a "bigger issue than Florida and Michigan. We have a very close contest between two people who are likely to be elected President of the United States, whichever one wins the nomination. I have to run these rules so that the losing side feels they've been treated fairly."

Dean added that some solution needs to be completed within the next three months. When anyone looks back over the last three months, June 10 seems like an eternity of twisting and turning and bickering away.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[adele]

My goodness....I live in the southern hemisphere and am highly dissapointed in the hatred generated towardsyour politicians....and as for blocking out huge states like florida and michigan ??comon....democracy???remember??and may I suggest a little less of the character assasinations on your candidates ...its boring..

[Jason]

After a good amount of reading, I wanted to respond to a few points made above. Before I do, though, I'd like to offer a framework for my prospective: I'm a black man and an Obama supporter, though Obama was not my first choice among Democratic Presidential nominees. Also, I'm a Floridian whose January 29 vote did not count. In short, as far as resolving this FL/MI business goes, I'm quite possibly damned if we do, quite assuredly damned if we don't.

As far as pre-Jan 29 advertising goes, I believe both candidates worked to circumvent the rules. Obama set up national advertising, Clinton appeared at Florida fundraisers while her husband showed up on national television in support of her campaign. I award negative points to both. May God have mercy on their souls.

As far as having my votes stripped, obviously I'm unhappy. Long before Jan 29, I followed the story. I watched as Florida legislators on every level rebelled, swearing to their constituents that the RNC and DNC would never strip away Florida's voting power because we as a state held too much influence. I'm watching now as those same elected officials cry foul. Woe is us. How dare they punish us for doing exactly what they warned us not to do?

We fought the law and the law won. Too bad it was really every voting Floridian and Michander who lost in the end.

What's the solution? A caucus would be a bad idea for the very same reasons outlined above. A mail-in ballot? Paper, voting, and Florida just don't mix. A second chance to do it right? Maybe. But giving both states a chance when the delegate count is so close would just give us what we wanted in the first place: doubled importance. Conversely, I think the lesson has been learned. I doubt any state will jump the gun anytime soon. Most importantly, this is America; no voice should ever be rendered mute.

But if you think stripping away our delegates violates the Constition, you've got some rereading to do. This is a primary, not a Presidential election. That's why the DNC can split a state's delegates by vote while the RNC gives the winning candidate credit for all. The national committees can count delegates as they wish.

That's not to say that I'm happy about the way things turned out, or even satisfied. However, I place the blame for this where I feel it should rest: with the Florida officials who rebelled and the Florida voters who elected them. I'll take out my frustrations the next time I vote for my governor and congressmen.

It is fact that the DNC and RNC announced that they were punishing us long before we held our primaries. It is fact that Hillary did not come out in state support until the day after the results were tallied to her favor. Going back on her promise to ignore states that broke the rules is not some grand and noble show. It is the audacity of desperation.

Finally, the idea that Obama can't win swing states is misguided. His ability or inability to win a swing state in a primary has little to do with his chance to win the same state in a Presidential election. Obama vs. Clinton simply isn't the same as Obama vs. McCain. Besides, during many swing-state primaries there were three names on the Democratic ballot, not two. Who knows how Edward's supporters would vote now? What does matter, though, is Obama's ability to pull the independent vote and his positive character image, both of which are McCain's strengths. Poll after poll has shown that, with the way things stand, McCain would have a tougher time against Obama than he would against Clinton.

Let's review: my legislators are idiots, my vote should count, Clinton has gall, Obama '08.

Done.

[dj]

Next election cycle in 2012, what to keep any other state from breaking DNC rule just to get to be in early primaries. Will they be punished, the 2/3 into the primary they will be seated. How about 7 state breaking party rules and doing the samething Michigan and Florida is doing. Give me a break. If it was against the rules, let the rules stand.

[AM]

Just give both of them, Obama and Clinton 200 delegates each, equally without any condition.

Then, one of them could get 2015 delegates before August.

If they need more, then give them another 100 each forget about Florida and Michigan since they broken the rules.

That's all folks!

[ML]

I'm not sure why everyone is so sure that Clinton would win Michigan and Florida. The "primaries" they held happened a long time ago, and as a resident of Michigan, I can say I saw no campaining for the democratic primary. Many who voted felt disenfranchised and many others did not go out to the polls at all. This debate has been polarized between the two parties by endless speculation, but no one knows what would happen until they see an actual vote. Regardless of the rules and how the other states feel about the fairness of a re-vote, the Democratic Party NEEDS a vote in these states. In such a tight race, they need to fully test the canidates' electability and they need more delegates in order to get one or the other candidate up to a winning count. Let's try it and see what happens!

[Kire]

I WANT A RE-VOTE! The folks in Michican and Florida didn't understand the consequences of holding their primaries when they did. This isn't fair! Again, we're being kept from our right to vote! It's 2000 all over again!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[John]

The Clintons' selfish interests can destroy the Democratic Party. Kudos Obama, your credentials are sound.

[Thomas]

Victor,

Hillary won't win any of the "big" states or the swing states either because millions of people will just stay home because they LOATHE her. She is momentously unelectable.

[JDK]

cynthia,
Yours is a perverted logic. Hillary did not honor the voters in MI & FL. She agreed to the DNC ban on MI & FL but kept her name on the ballot to fool other serious contenders into believing that she is not campaigning. Now she claims to have won the states? When she agreed to the ban, how can she claim victory? Seating those delegates is unfair to the other candidates who abided by the agreement. Obama's name was there on the ballot in FL, not MI. Stop lying. Only one ad he ran and then he ordered to stop it after the DNC ban. Hillary has a name recongnition in MI & FL just like all other states when Obama didn't start his campaign. Once his campaign started in a state, the gap almost disappeared and he overtook her in many states with his message. Now Obama did not get the chance to campaign in MI & FL. The very basis of elections is for candidates to campaign and let the voters decide who they want as their leader. So, without the candidates not campaigning, how does the existing results really reflect what people want? In my view MI & FL delegates should not be seated but if it comes to a point where their voice needs to be heard, either a re-do or splitting the delegates is the best way to go.

[Penny]

What ever happened to Obama's take on the Iraq war defending his voting since the commencement of the war. You know, the bus is in the ditch statement. This is where we are, and we need to move on from here. With that being said, I think all the voters need to be heard.

Since Obama withdrew his name from the ticket in Michigan (for whatever reason), Michigan should be a do over state. However, both names were on the ticket in Florida and the people have voted, so I feel Florida should remain as is.

[Peggy Teichmiller]

If you want to define unfair, look at how Ron Paul has been treated! If he got half the air time as Obama or Hillary there would only be one candidate to even think about! This comment probably won't even see print but I think it's about time all the candidates were treated fairly and not just the mainstream medias' choices...He is what the Republican Party is all about!

~P~

(Well, if you've been a regular here in recent months, you've seen quite a bit of coverage of Dr. Paul, including details on how he's been ignored elsewhere. So feel free to return anytime.)

[ajk]

Can't anybody stick to the topic? How can Florida and Michigan vote? How about the primaries they already have scheduled to select candidates for congress and statewide offices? There is no additional cost to adding three lines: President of the United States (select one): Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama.

Is that really so hard?

[Kenneth M. Bailey]

It's amazing to me that the people reporting the circumstances that transpired in Florida are simply following eroneous information reported by their collegues, instead of verifying the facts. As reported in a CNN/Time Magazine piece back in August of 2007; It was the Republican legislature and Governor in Florida that decided to move the election date up and the Democrats simply did'nt have enough votes in the legislature to block the measure. It is pure folly for the DNC to punish the Florida Democrats for something they had little say in; and for an action that resulted in a new election day that is one (1) week earlier that the rules would allow. Please get the story right!

[michelle owens]

Al Sharpton is going to sue the democratic party if they give Hillary the vote. How absurd. We voted in the state of Florida all names were included. None were suppose to campaign. Barrack had air time in both states. Hillary won in a landslide in Florida and Michigan. Why do we need to revote, is it because Barrack wants the table turned so he can win. I thought that when Al Gore wanted a revote it was said, " revotes do not exist. Barrack Obama sounds to me he wants to divide the democratic party. Hillary is winning the popular vote. Obama the delegates. This is suppose to be a democratic vote. The people have spoken,"Seat Our Delegates!'

[Jenna]

When did democrats stop believing that EVERY vote counts? Dean should have never completely stripped them of delegates in the first place (republicans did it right and halfed the delegates). All this whining about changing the rules makes no sense to me. The rules were stupid to begin with. Why say the rules should stand without looking at whether the rules made any sense in the first place?

[jdk410]

With all the talk about how to handle seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida - I though it would be interesting to see what the public thinks is the best way to resolve the issue.

Share your opinion and view the current results.

Participate in Poll:
https://howtohandlemichiganandflorida.dabbledb.com/page/howtohandlemichiganandflorida/EwLtZtre

[Vee Robillard]

OK. I suggest this newly formed thinking should apply to all the contests in the USA from now on:

In the Super Bowl, if the losing team finds themselves down by 14 points in the third quarter, they should not be penalized for the rest of the game. After all, isn't this more fair to the fans who've paid to see an exciting game?

In the Indianapolis 500, the car in second place during the last 10 laps, should be allowed a free pit-stop and tire change, so that the fans get the best value for their money.

In the World Series, if a team finds themselves down by 2 runs or more going into the ninth inning, the leading team must remove their second baseman. Afterall, wouldn't this be more respectful of the fans hard earned money?

If the Clinton's are allowed to rewrite the rules because they are losing (one can be certain this is the only reason they are suddenly concerned about 'disenfranchised' voters.) Why were these issues not raised before the primary season began? Because she expected her coronation. Now the crown looks more elusive, and she wants to change the rules. This is a perfect example of the Clinton machine at work, and if she wins, the USA is faced with more of the same Washington BS we've endured for the last 20 years.

[Jackie]

Angering Florida's Democrats is a bad idea right now. They were both on the ballot, they both stuck to the rules. Seat FL's delegates.

Michagin needs another solution though, as seating those delegates is clearly unfair. Mail-in sounds pretty good at this point. Fair to both candidates.

[bode]

I do not usually comment on pages such as this, but it amazes me that American people can be so ignorant. I am a republican, and I will be voting for McCain in November regardless of how this primary business pans out. It would be nice for me if neither candidate got the delegate count needed; maybe the supreme court could rule that there will be no Democratic Presidential Nominee (I could only hope).

Anyways, Democratic or Republican, the state leaders in FL and MI chose to break the rules and I feel they should be punished. We all know Democrats aren't the brightest colors in the crayon box, but I'm sure they will figure out a solution to this problem; and when they do, I say that they implement the solution and then seek punishment on the states for their actions last year.

Further, I would like to address you Clinton and Obama supporters. Clinton is an unqualified liberal that will economically ruin this country. Also, like her husband, she will cause even greater problems in the middle east. She claims to have a great amount of experience, but as a New York native and political science major, I can tell you that her experience is negative to say the least. The only thing she does well is campaign with dirty methods as she targets the uneducated voters that constitute the majority of her constituency. As for Obama, he is a moderate idealist that gets as many anti-Clinton votes as he does pro-Obama votes. His experience may be low, but need I remind you that the youngest and least experienced President in United States history was able to handle the Cuban Missle Crisis? Obama is a motivating and empowering speaker, his ability to speak is the Democrats best chance to win the general election. Trust me, the American population will not tolerate the dirty, negative, far-left campaign of Clinton throughout the coming months. McCain will receive Republican, Independent, and anti-Clinton Democratic votes in a general election with the NY Senator.

So, let FL and MI do a re-vote, put Clinton in the general election, and let me sleep well for the next four years knowing that there is still a qualified President in the White House in the form of John McCain.

[marion]

No wonder why today's youth, instead of accepting the consequences of their actions when they've disobeyed rules or laws, just whine about how they've been discriminated against and treated unfairly. Our society permits it at all levels, starting with the election process.
Florida and Michigan were aware of the possible consequences of voting early and accepted them. Now they want to change the rules and be allowed back in the game. They don't have the right to let their voices be heard. They forfeited the right months ago! The Democrats should stand strong and enforce the rules, otherwise, it all begins to look a little too shady. Is the Clinton Machine behind all this?

[Diane]

The DNC Leaders who made these rules should be willing to show flexibility and allow the original Florida votes to be counted, as was the will of the people who voted. This DNC rule is insane!

Florida has already “voted” in the Primary. If this truly is a democracy, Florida votes should count.

The Primary date changing from January until June, or “Anytime” before the date of the Democratic Convention, should be acceptable.

Who makes these rules? This is taking away Freedoms from Americans! Whoever decided this should step down from the job and the rules need to be corrected. The DNC should own up to their mistake.

It is not “American” for the votes not to be count the first time!!!!

[DaveMuckey]

We've had Vote by Mail in Oregon for quite some time now. It's a great solution, relatively inexpensive and a decent solution for this. The voters shouldn't be penalized for their state parties' over inflated egos, but they knew what the rules were when they broke them.

As for Iowa and New Hampshire's odd claims to be first in line, I'd love to see rotating regional primaries replace the current hodge podge schedule.

[Jane from New Mexico]

This is an no-brainer. The democrat parties in both Florida and Michigan decided to break the rules and have the "primary" anyway. Of course it can't count, and they knew this ahead of time. They are behaving like children. It is their problem. They made the decision, knowing the consequences. They still have the option of holding a legal primary, but, they, of course, must pay for it. How could it be otherwise? It's simple really.

[wolf]

This so reminds me of the problems in our judicial system --- not sticking to rules or laws, when it happens to favor some "special person" or people.

The simplest, fairest thing to do, is stick the rules already laid out. Florida and Michigan, because of the actions of their legislatures, should not be seated. If they don't like this, they need to change their representatives and/or primaries... for next time. Not midway during an election.

[Clif Thompson]

I am so tired of hearing how Hillary is supposedly fighting for the rights of voters to be heard. People who are following that line of bull totally forgot Nevada.

Nevada was almost the exact same scenario. EVERYBODY agreed to the rules: in this case, the locations of the ballot boxes, of which most were concentrated in the Restaurant and CAsino districts. This was decided A YEAR IN ADVANCE.

But when Barack surprisingly got the nod from the Cullinary and Restaurant Workers Union, all the sudden, the Clintons (okay, Bill) cried fowl, talking about how votes in the casinos were 5 times worth more than votes in the rural areas.

On top of that, the Teacher's UNion, whom were outnumbered by teh Cullinary Union 6 to 1, decided to file a lawsuit, saying that the location of the ballot boxes skewed towards casino workers. Guess who the Teacher's union endorsed: Hillary Clinton.

That lawsuit, if it stood, would have disenfranchised all of those working in the Restaurants, the Casinos and the Las Vegas Strip, who were mainly Black and Latinos (the core voting groups at the time).

HIllary didn't say anything then, and even won the popular vote (Barack won 15 delegates to here 14, so much for Bills math).

So for anyone out of Florida or Michigan that's canonizing Hillary Clinton as your Joan d' Arc, really need to look at your patron saint a little more closely. She isn't looking to represent you, she's looking for you to represent her in two states where many voters DID feel disenfranchised, and used that to her advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, if you guys don't suffer the consequences than who will? and at what cost if you don't? Sorry, but you guys should not be given the exception. We are responsible for our government we live under, and that's no more true than in the United States of America.