Please show how a revote will help in November.

The Clinton spin is that unless there is a revote Michigan and Florida are doomed in November. They make this claim loudly and repeatedly without a speck of substantiation. Where are the polls?

Surly if there were proof that a redo for Clinton would help the Democrats later the Clinton campaign would have released it by now, wouldn't they? Since they don't it is also possible that the polling doesn't support their position, or that giving her special treatment would actually hurt the Democrats chances. Many people think the Party rules exists for a reason, the Clinton campaign's attempt to cut in line with the early primaries, with full knowledge of the consequences, should have to live with the results.

would be in accordance with party rules.

Clinton and the DLC tried to undermine the DNC's power, and Dean's position, with their little coup. It didn't work. Most voters, however, know little about the power plays, and only know that their votes are being discounted, and some will hold the entire party to blame, either staying home or voting repub in November. A re-vote will hold them to the party, and it makes no difference which candidate benefits from the re-vote. The party itself benefits.

Actually, I don't think that it will affect the overall run of the voting, either way -- short of a 65/35 blowout in all the upcoming contests, there is no way Hillary can catch Obama and take the lead, even WITH Michigan and Florida.

I'll bet Floyd Landis is pissed that his Tour de France title was stripped after it was revealed he'd won illegally. Sucks to be him.

The Floridian voters were allowed to vote AND their votes were used to allocate delegates... but no where does it say that the DNC must accept these tainted results.

What rules did I violate to have my right to have my vote count stripped?

That aside, did you lead a protest about the fact that these delegates wouldn't be seated BEFORE the primary? You had ample time to do so.

usually doesn't count, I'm in a late state, it doesn't change what I do in the general.

Back to the point. Is there a demonstrated connection between following the rules established at the outset and Democratic losses in November.

NT!

I think that's pretty useful/ There's a difference between voting and actively supporting, and people won't do the latter if they feel they've been shafted.

it will seem fairer, others believe in playing by the rules.

because the rules say they can, but for some reason I see plenty of Obama supporters claiming that that would Democracy as we know it.

I just don't think it's fair to exclude them, especially FL, where the Republicans changed the date, and where Obama actually ran a campaign ad the night before, breaking the rules.

But my real reason is that it seems to me more Democratic. The voters, after all, weren't guilty.

the nomination, it's very clear that they have that power.

You don't think it is fair, no Hillary supporter thinks its fair, but that doesn't address my question. Is there any substance to the claim that not holding the revote is more damaging than holding it.

I think it's worth the money to have as fair a process as possible, but after hearing about what went on in Texas the thing is a farce anyway.

However, if you don't care what's fair, especially if it may hinder your candidate, so be it.

but we disagree as to what is fair at this juncture.

Do you have any facts to back that up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Florida_primary



The only 2 that voted against it were repukes.
Stop posting BS.

And it is not true that the repubs changed the date. THE DEMS AGREED WITH THEM. Voting records prove this fact.

get the nomination. That's how.

a) be mad that the were disenfranchised
b) come out and vote for Dems at either the presidential or local levels
c) vote for Repubs in retalliation
d) not help organize GOTV for candidates
e) not contribute to Dem candidates

If their primary votes don't count. I posted it in LBN. I don't believe anybody's polled Michigan Dems yet, but I would be surprised if the results were much different.

in the way MI & FL are being punished. Can't believe the DNC is doing this, just unbelievable.

who tried to cut in line are rewarded.

if the rules are changed now? That's my point, you can't only ask the question that suits your position.

but I can't guarantee that is correct. As close as FL has been in recent years, it's substantial.

let Hillary have a second chance?

She didn't do anything to contribute to not having her first chance count...

It's interesting that people are so cavalier with my vote...

the reason the primaries were moved up was to help her campaign with the inevitability momentum.


but answer my question, how much will it hurt to accommodate Hillary both nationally, and in the selected states.

The reason the primaries were moved up is because MI and FL wanted a greater impact in the nominating process and they resented the primacy of uber small and homogeneous IA and NH in that process...

HRC didn't campaign there as per the rules...

That being said I want my vote to count and can't see how giving FL and MI the back of your hand helps Democratic prospects in the Fall...

pushed the early primary, they were strong Hillary supporters who believed an early primary would help her. Whoops.

And it doesn't negate the point the innocent voters from the those two states were disenfranchised by their (own) party...

opted for a date which would benefit their candidate. They failed, now they want a bail out which could have a negative impact throughout the country.

It is the rare year that voters aren't disenfranchised by the primary system.

It's not just that we can lose those states it's that McCain can win them with spending little time and money...That's more money for him to spend elsewhere...

In 00 we (us Florida Democrats) made Bush* spend a lot of time and money in FL despite being the brother of a very popular governor...

I'm afraid this year McCain can win it in a walk...

election where Hillary sets the rules will hurt more than no election. We just don't know, so it's a guess fromm anyone.

Oh, it was a "fund raiser". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

To me, that sounds like the most fair way to everyone except Obama (I say that because the FL primary was so early in the process that I believe Hillary won more on name-recognition & reputation than Obama) but... there's no way that's fair to everyone. Logistally, there's no way to re-vote (because of the cost, state laws, etc. - for instance, what would they do about all the snowbirds who voted who have now gone home?).

The DNC ought to just back off, say "we were wrong to try to disenfranchise the voters" and let the election stand.

MI is a different issue because the DNC encouraged the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Obama complied whereas Hillary didn't, so I think MI needs to be re-done somehow.

The voters are paying for it - but where were the voters when this was proposed? It's not like this was a secret!

There is no right to vote in a primary. Established precedent backs this.

If they did the rest, then they'd be petulant children willing to hurt others for their erroneous sense of victimization. If they'd paid attention and raised a ruckus before the primary - like informed citizens - maybe this wouldn't have even been an issue.

they'll be giving the okay to John McCain to keep the flag-covered boxes coming back from Iraq. Theoretically, they'll drive through their neighborhoods and see the gas prices, closed factories and foreclosure sale signs and think, "The Republicans have been in charge for 2 terms, everything has gone to hell, I'm going to allow another one to win the election." I can't imagine that would happen.

Well, didn't Obama;s voters stay home in FL as most would claim...? HIllary won FL! No If's - And's or BUTS! Both were on the ballot and both received votes..Hillary got 56%..too bad so sad..

but it doesn't address my question.

(CNN) – A top Michigan Democrat who has not backed either presidential candidate reports that negotiators working to pass an 11th-hour plan for a re-vote in the state are increasingly frustrated with Barack Obama’s failure to either embrace the plan currently being considered, or propose an alternative.

Lawmakers are facing mounting pressure this evening to come up with an agreement before the legislature adjourns Thursday for a two-week recess.

“The Obama people are blocking it in the legislature,” the Democratic source tells CNN, who says that the group has repeatedly and unsuccessfully reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.

The source says that Obama’s campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.

The Clinton campaign has been increasing its criticism of Obama for his failure to back a new primary that would meet national party requirements and allow a full Michigan delegation to be seated at the Democratic convention this summer.

Wednesday, Hillary Clinton made her first campaign appearance in Michigan this year, challenging Obama directly to back the seating of a full Michigan delegation.

Clinton won the January Michigan contest with 55 percent of the vote, but was awarded no delegates. She was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot; 40 percent of the party’s primary voters chose the “uncommitted” option instead.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who has been a major proponent of a new primary vote, told CNN Wednesday that his group of four unaligned Michigan politicians was hopeful that legislators would vote on the plan this evening or Thursday, which would allow the delegation to be seated “without a floor fight and without a credentials fight.”

But Michigan state Sen. Tupac Hunter, a major Obama supporter, says an “overwhelming majority” of members who support both candidates “find something or the other wrong with it and cannot support it in its current form. A new vote, he added, “does not look likely.”

“From where I sit there are no floating pieces to this,” said Hunter — nothing that can be changed that wouldn’t require a major alteration or abandonment of the current proposal. “I’m not sure how feasible it is at this point… there’s nothing I’ve seen or heard that would lead me to believe that there’s going to be an agreement.”

He called on the DNC Chairman Howard Dean to step in immediately and broker a compromise, to help avoid a “chaotic convention.”

“There’s a lot of hot rhetoric out there. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, they’re in the throes of a campaign, we understand that,” he said. “But the DNC needs to come in and calm the storm.”

ask the question both ways.

That there isn't a speck of verification for the claim makes me think it is just hot air.

ask the question both ways.

That there isn't a speck of verification for the claim makes me think it is just hot air.

and giving them a sense of "ownership" about the candidate and the policies?

my question isn't what they think is fair. My question is how much harm will be done by this special treatment.

It looks like my original hunch is correct, it may hurt Democratic chances to have a second vote.

WTF are talking about....

Giving people a fair say in a primary election isn't "special treatment." It's (what used to be) how Americans did things.

The default position, so to speak.

How that would possibly hurt the Dems, I have no twisted idea.

it rewards the states who attempted the rules. Voters from states that followed the rules see that as unfair.

It likely will have a major negative national impact, judging from the answers here.

They're simply getting what they ordinarily would have gotten- at a higher price and a later date.

Seems to me- even if one chooses to view this from a partisan perspective- Obama has a shot at coming out ahead, compared with the situation as it stood back in January.

giving them a vote now have. Many voters have strong opinions about this, and do not see it your way, they may express that in November.

with their blinders on.

Or from people who don't want to pony up the money.

redo are from partisans with their blinders on.


Clinton only wants a redo on her terms, if she gets it many voters won't support the Party.

This isn't about Clinton- it's about a fair vote, inclusiveness and Democracy....

and I don't think its fair that so many voters nation wide could be alienated to give her a minuscully improved chance to get the nomination.

Clinton didn't give a damn about the enfranchisement of these voters until she desperately needed them. She still opposes any vote that isn't structured to benefit her.

and see cult-like behavior.

As in- every issue or criticism of the "party line" has to be about some demonized figure.

In this case, you'd even toss democracy itself out the window, as some evil plot.

a revote where Hillary sets the rules? Some people honestly believe that outcomes that don't benefit Hillary can be fair. They will be angry, we need to find out how angry.

a revote where Hillary sets the rules? Some people honestly believe that outcomes that don't benefit Hillary can be fair. They will be angry, we need to find out how angry.

they willingly give up their right to vote in kind.

or something.

to advantage a particular candidate the legitimacy of the Party, and voter willingness to support its nominee is imperiled.

to advantage a particular candidate the legitimacy of the Party, and voter willingness to support its nominee is imperiled.

because it does not ask what damage will be done if there is a revote. Not everyone thinks it is "fair" to reward the states who opted to cut in line, some of that group will not vote Democratic if an accommodation to Clinton is made.

There is no polling to address the question of what damage a revote would do partly because it is a rediculous question. It may seem like many people on DU all of a sudden have a huge love for the rules, but most people in America have no idea how the rules work and don't really care. The number of people who actually think it is fair to place party rules over voting rights is negligable. The reality is that if the revote wouldn't hurt Obama, you would not be seeing anyone on DU or anywhere else defending the sacred party rules over the voting rights of millions of people.

But I don't have polling data to support that (other than the fact that in their very comprehensive poll, they didn't even think the question was serious enough to ask). All I have is polling data that shows that no revote results in John McCain. I would take a revote over a guaranteed loss any day.

the states who legitimately voted early. It's ridiculous to argue that they're fine with being punished for playing by the rules.

A revote would throw out the original FL and MI votes. So they would be having votes after Feb 5th, which would make the legit. Thus, the DNC would count them. Therefore, they would be playing by the rules. There is no rule saying FL and MI can't fix the mess by having revotes. There is no rule saying FL and MI can't hold a beauty contest before Feb 5th and a legit primary later (subject to approval by the DNC).

So how would FL and MI revoting (and thus playing by the rules again) disadvantage the early states?

states in November. If we were talking about RI and HI it wouldn't be such a big deal (no offense to anyone from RI or HI) because both have very few electoral votes. On the other hand, Fla. could be in play and MI should go Democratic. And both are BIG prizes in Nov. But if millions of voters are basically told to go to Hell because they don't count then many may say "screw you" in NOV and stay home. Or vote for McCain out of anger. And don't think McCain isn't going to be going a lot to FL and Mi and telling the voters there over and over and over that even though the Democrats don't think they count he does.

We cannot take for granted the Nov will be a blowout for the Democratic candidate. I don't think it's a good idea to piss those voters off. That's stupid. Fine or punish the Democratic leaders that made the decision to hold early primaries. Not the voters.

that accommodating Clinton will help more in November than following the rules?

No one disputes that Florida and Michigan are important, that is a straw man argument. My question is whether there is polling that shows Clinton's position will improve the chances for a Democratic win in those states in November.

I do support her but I am a practical person. Even if the primaries were held again and Obama won I would be okay with that. This election is too important to be pissing off voters in two major states. I am thinking about November.

don't vote Democratic if the Clinton campaign gets its way. It is not factual that this move will be popular in states that have already voted, or with all voters in Michigan and Florida. It is safe to assume that that is an issue, because those supporting the rule change refuse to address it.

That gives Grand Pa more money and time to invest and spend elsewhere...

if he is the nom come Nov these people are going to remember how he disenfranchised them


not very politically smart of him.....he has much to learn

rules now?

It's a simple question. There will be a negative impact both in the states, and nationally. My question is how significant will it be.

McCain significant

I posted hard evidence that not having a revote has a huge, election-ending negative impact. You said that evidence doesn't count, since it doesn't measure the "negative impact of having a revote." (I think that idea is so rediculous that asking the question in a poll would be a waste of time, but you want data and I don't have it for that question.)

But now you assert there will be a negative impact without **any evidence whatsoever** . You have no evidence that a) voters know or care about the rules, or b) voters will actually vote differently in the GE if there is a revote for the primary.

Please don't cry foul when you don't see evidence for opposing viewpoints, and then assert your own viewpoint without evidence.

answers the question about the negative impact nationally, or in those states, of changing the rules now. You must not have anything because you keep changing the subject.

I freely admitted twice that I had no data to back up my theory.

But YOU are the person who is asserting there will be a negative impact without any data. I am at least freely admitting that I have no data about any potential "negative impact" a revote might have.

asked, the supposition that changing the rules will help Democrats in November is absolutely baseless.

My position is that it is impossible to assert it will have no negative impact without proof.

1) It removes any cloud (however small) from the eventual nominee, assuming they are not otherwise elected by a back room deal.
2) It probably gets us closer to our nominee, or rather faster, since if plans were today in place for MI and FL re-votes then all the nonsense about counting pop. vote/delegates, whatever, from those states that Clinton folks do today would stop dead in its tracks until June, since those previous primaries would be moot. The gap between Clinton and Obama would then be even more glaring and the push to get Hillary out of the race would be greater.

Hillary is simply trying to create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) around the MI/FL delegates in order to make it appear she has some (feeble) path to the nomination. She has no interest in either state re-voting, because it would help Obama more than it could possibly help her.

:dem: