Florida and Michigan, put up a fight to let your votes count!!!!!!!

This is ridiculous, and probably calculated to some degree and frankly makes me sick.

Oh yea there are SLUMS here and numerous school closing in those areas. No hot lunches for our kids in CPS. Higher taxes and the SLUM Cook county Hospital (sick zone and health hazard) Thats just in Chicago. WGN reported earlier in the year there were some ties to Obama to Election money extortionist as well and Illinoians STILL voted for him.

Also got calls from that "Greatest Church in the World" 3 broadcast messages in one day and 2 the next and no one would initially return my calls to find out how they got my number - this coincidentally came after several online comments about Obama. So you won't see a signature here.

Florida Primary 101:

*I live in Florida.
*I voted.
*Where is my vote?
*Where are the other votes?
*Count them.
*Apply them.
*Appoint delegates accordingly.

Florida republicans can screw us ONLY if the DNC let's them do it.

There is no "law" that compels the DNC to ignore our vote. That is just internal "rule making" and given their first obligation is to obey law, Florida's government has a legal right to decide when to hold a primary, not the DNC, so count the votes already.

Gio, greetings from America. Your careful analysis is very good and helpful. Your lack of a stake in the election truly has allowed you to see the issues more clearly. Thanks. I hope we hear from you again. Ciao.

I perfectly agree with Mr. Martinez and I am astonished how democrats are doing their best to fracturing the party. Well, not seen, as seen from the outside, since I am European and I have no shares either for Clinton or for Obama, as seen from the outside it is Sen. Clinton much more in charge for looking for a division in order to pursue her personal career agenda. In a sense I admit Sen. Clinton remembers me Mr. Berlusconi, in Italy, in her attitudes, her way of smiling, and of attacking no matter what.
I firmly believe you should not change the rules during the game. Obviously Sen. Clinton is helped by her established name, and very often she manages to make use of the infrastructure of the democrats party (as in Ohio), what is much less accessible to Sen. Obama.
I am kind of an observer, I am not US-citizen and have no right to vote. But as I saw the Clinton-Obama debate in Cleveland I can tell you Clinton was lying on some quoted numbers (when you miss a factor ten, you are no longer imprecise, it is a lie!), and this made her no eligible to me. Exactly like her call for a gender vote (of course race and gender cannot be ignored in this primaries, but still should not be called as a reason to be voted) at the end of the debate.
This is your elections and your choice will be the expression of the kind of leader you wish and deserve. I am pretty curious about that.

Cheers from Europe.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

New Vids! and New Polls Posted Weekly!

Give Us Ideas For Polls!

Please compare Rev. Hagee's church to Rev. Wright's church.

Which one these sights seem to address some of the social issues that can provide Americans now and for generations to come with resources which can make them productive and independent citizens? Which church is trying to save taxpayers' money? Which one seems genuine and welcoming for the individual? Which one has members/former members who offer scholarships to youth? Which church is more likely to reduce the number of individuals for our society to complain about? Which sight seems to exhibit the love of Christ and his mission? Which one seems to show respect and love of our country and constitution?

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Default.asp Hagee
http://www.tucc.org/home.htm Wright

TO JAN: You are reading my lips and my toughts. You are 100% right. Obama will never have my vote.Florida can redue the voting 100 times.He is a liar,divided the dem. party,took us back again in the 60's and more his CHANGE is working for REVENGE, prove by his mentor Jeremiah Wright and his new pastor, who said that the media crucified J.Wright,unfairly. My original vote went to Clinton, and I want like many floridian,that our vote to be counted.If somebody didn't respect the rules,punishe them, not US. Don't take away our constitutional right.Obama was the only one in fact, who advertised in Florida not Clinton.Would be nice to be fair.

'It is unfair to penalize Florida Democrats for the political maneuvers of the governor and legislature.'

And who voted in the governor and legislature of Florida? Just the Republicans?

Rosemary, hi -
Campaigning, boots on the ground, and having an ad on CNN transmitted by satellite indiscriminately in all 50 states by long prior arrangement are totally different. By definition to campaign in Florida, you have to BE in Florida, as Hillary was. She, and only she, was filmed in FL, campaigning. You knew that. And yet you post innuendo about Barack, who honored his commitment unlike Hillary. We Dems up North are on your side, but the facts are concrete. The historical record is set. There's nothing to be gained by denying the reality of the past.

Right now I am listening to Obama in Indiana argue why there should not be another primary in FL but a fair division of delegates between him and Hillary. He indicates that he did not have an opportunity to campaign there so it is unfair? Well, Obama in fact was the ONLY candidate to run an ad in Florida (night before the election) and his name was on the ballot as well as every other Democratic Party candidate. Hillary won the primary. No one other than Obama either ran ads or campaigned as per the rules and he continues to fail to admit he broke them while proclaiming rules are rules? My only response was...OK? When this guy doesn't have a prepared script he speaks out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. Florida delegates should be seated and a new primary run in MI. No party officials have the right to bend the US Constitution.

It was the Florida LEGISLATURE (Republican dominated) which decided to move the primary in defiance of party rules --- not he Fla Democratic Party.

Why is this so difficult for everyone to grasp --- not least including Howard Dean, who keeps blaming the party.

As a lifelong Floridian, I predict this is going to nail Fla down as Republican for the foreseeable future. No more important swing state --- solidly red-state from here on out!

True enough about how prez are really elected- the C arts call for a elect coll- not a pop vote. But the popies are who sent the reps to the collegeorl college to do their bidding. WATCH OUT! That old dog still got plenty of teeth.

It looks like the Florida Republicans have outsmarted the Democrats one more time. The Republican governor and legislature in Florida were responsible for the primary being moved forward. The names of all nominees stayed on the ballot and no candidate officially campaigned in the state.

Given that it was not the Florida Democratic Party that moved the election forward but the Republican legislature, the Florida vote should be counted "as is". It is unfair to penalize Florida Democrats for the political maneuvers of the governor and legislature. If Florida isn't seated, and if this problem isn't resolved quickly, the Democratic Party will pay dearly in November. No way can the Democratic Party deny Florida participation in the nomination process and hope to win the state in November.

Part of me agrees with the columnist that MI and FL shouldn't be coddled, but the greater part of me says that we're realists and shouldn't exclude the voters of those states.

Therefore, I'd have do-overs in both places, but penalize both states by awarding half of the delegates based on the results. I would also make those states's superdelegates each carry 0.5 of one vote.

Going forward, I'd like to see the Democrats work to compress the primary season. It should start in March and run through June.

Andrés,
Tienes mucho de razon.
Y ¡^Ojala que puedo escribir en el español tan bueno como escribes en el inglés!
Gmo

I found the comparison to the PRI in Mexico very interesting. I believe we are here, Republican & Democratic Parties, to be moving closely to the old Central American ways of politics. The 2000 case was even a worse one: No wonder that, at that time, our neighbors in the South really felt "close" to us.

To be fair, and for the Democratic Party to uphold it's own decisions, the number of Democratic delegates available should be reduced by 313 (Michigan and Florida. The total will go from 4,049 to 3,736. Instead of needing 2,025 to win, Clinton or Obama will need 1,869.

Do you think Spain would buy Florida back? Seriously, those Benedict Arnolds whose Democratic values are no deeper than their beautiful Gulf, who vow, tantrum-like, to throw the election, aren't deserving of our American right to vote, which presumes bona fide intent.

As for seating their delegates at the convention now that they've exposed their dark design to vote Republican - WHY? Snakes that rattle should be left outdoors. Soldiers who threaten to go AWOL in war are dishonorably discharged to spare them from being executed for wartime desertion.

Sorry to pound hard, but this election is too important to cut slackers slack.

Stephen Garramone, Hi,
Florida Dems wrote, sponsored, and pushed the bill to move the primary date with the UNANIMOUS support of the Florida Democratic Party delegates. The Dems bill passed 181 to 0 (House) 37 to 2 (Senate) hardly over Dems' dead bodies. That the FDP lied to the DNC about who wrote the bill in meetings prior to 1-29 and to YOU on their website is to their disgrace and your disservice, as it led the DNC to overreact punitively. The DNC suggested in those meetings with the FDP, along with several other ways that would allow you to have delegates seated, that your primary could be held on 1-29 and the results not released to the press until 1-5. The FDP refused, not surprisingly, it being their plan all along to break faith with their fellow Dems in 49 other states.

Obama is not electable. He will never win Florida or Michigan in the general election due to his betrayal of the legacy of Dr. King and others who fought and died so that people could have a voice in our democracy.

Florida Republicans attached the date of our primary to a bill that requires a paper trail at the polls. Democrats in the legislature decided that it is more important to have electoral integrity in the fall, even if it meant losing our voice at the convention.

Regardless of what they said before, only one candidate wants my vote to count: Clinton. Obama will never get my vote, and according to polls, I am not the only Florida Democrat who feels this way.

Obama may inspire some people, but he disgusts me. He is turning the clock back on the civil rights movement by playing the race card whenever he is questioned. His "politics of hope" is a sham, and his real estate transactions with Rezco should put him in jail. He would make a better used car salesman then leader of the free world.

sit the delegates and may GOD have mercy on our souls...lol...

If we want every fellow Deomocrat to have a voice in this process than FL and MI will be allowed to re-vote.

Obama does not want a re-vote, so his supporters are using the campaign line by saying they want every vote to count and following with but rules are rules.

HAVE YOU PEOPLE HAVE NOT HAVE ENOUGH OF THE CLINTON,S THEY WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES ,LIE, CHEAT ,STEAL,
THERE IS A LIST OF 47 PEOPLE THAT DIED MYSTERIOUSLY THAT KNEW TOO MUCH OR WERE GOING TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE CLINTONS PLUS 12 BODY GUARDS OF THE CLINTONS DEAD AS WELL ,STRANGE HUH. THIS IS HOW THEY ARE WILL FIGHT AND SCRATH TO GET WHAT THEY WANT AT NO COST.

John Leddo, who was referred to above, was totally wrong. In FL it was NOT the decision of the Democratic Party to move the primary up to January but it was the GOP legislature and Governor who did that. To argue that it was FLorida's Democratic party's fault is totally wrong.

Get your facts right, Andres Martinez before you shoot off your mouth.

In Michigan, it was the Democrats' fault because they controlled the legislature and governorship.

The vote in Florida needs to be counted, as all were on the ballot and MI needs a revote. The idea that the DNC is so arrogant that they would DISENFRANCHISE its own voters because FL party leaders did not follow national rules is idiocy. Voter disenfranchisement was a 100 plus year issue and as we see here it is not over yet. We need to be realists in a bad economy and not ask voters to put up money in a revote in FL when the the vote was fair. Besides the DNC sure thinks they are the all powerful. Wake up and smell the atmosphere folks. CHANGE we want CHANGE. Not a party that behaves like this. And if our alternative is the Republicans we can all either vote for Nader (who actually tries to protect Americans) or Ron Paul (who actually is a believer in freedom) or start a new country somewhere where we are a true Republic or Democracy. We sure have lost our way here.

Its all about the rules. And the DNC changed the rules of the game midstream.

The rules dictate that any state that violates the timing rules should lose half its delegates and all superdelegates.

This means that Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina should all be losing half their delegates. Yet somehow the DNC decided not to follow its own bylaws. If they had followed their own rules, none of this would be an issue right now.

I guess the question - can we trust a party that can't make and abide by its own rules, to assume the mantle of leadership?

so now Billary has her donar thugs threatening the DNC and "demanding" their money back. By a baseball bat, its cheaper.

Dean and the DNC committee should tell these thugs to pound sand and sue if they like.

Also, Obama'a supporters would happily replace the Clinton blood money out of the DNC.

Good ridance Clinton donor thugs.

One email from Obama could raise the DNC $1,000,000.

Billary, you are so desperate and immoral, but your options are closing fast. Get out while some people still respect you and your husband.

svreader it won't mean that much if Hillary wins Pa because everyone expects her to but Obama is ahead and he is a rookie when it comes to any wrong doing compared to the Clinton's. Mabe you should go back and take a refresher course on the Clinton's and all their lies and deceiving the voters.

HILLARY IS CAUSING ALL THE TROUBLE AND GOING TO HURT DEMOCRAT PARTY IN PROCESS BRING UP STUFF ON OBAMA AND SHE OF ALL PEOPLE WITH ALL THE SCANDEL IN HER LIFE SHE SHOULD TALK. ABOUT VOTES I FL. AND MI. EVERY BODY NEW AHEAD OF TIME THEY WERE NOT GOING TO COUNT AND IF THEY VOTED THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM KNOWING THAT IN MI. ONLY ONE NAME ON BALLET SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN NOW.IT IS NOT FAIR TO AWARD HER VOTES AND HIM UNCOMMITED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR EDWARDS AS WELL IF THIS WAS OTHER WAY AROUND SHE WOULD COMPLAIN AS FAR AS FLORIDA THEY KNEW AHEAD DID NOT COUNT THE REASON SOME WENT OUT WAS BECAUSE OF PROPERTY TAXES. THE NIGHT OF FLORIDA ELECTION HILLARY MAKES VIVTORY SPEACH IN FLORIDA KNOWING WAS NOT GOING TO COUNT HOW BRAZEN OF HER. SHE BEEN OUT MANOVERED BY HIM AND NOW SHE IS DOING EVERY THING SHE CAN SMEAR HIM WITH AND DOES NOT CARE IF SHE TAKES PARTY DOWN AS WELL AS LONG AS SHE CAN WIN AND IF SHE CANNOT SHE DOES NOT CARE IF REPUBLICAN WIN.OBAMA HAS MOST DELEGATES ,MORE POPALAR VOTE AND EVEN WITH FL. & MI. SHE CANNOT WIN.

It is high time that this two party system, the flawed election system and representation by the people is reformed and the hypocrisy of democracy song and dance put in its proper prospective. The words democracy, democratic process etc along with god does no appear any where in the Constitution and neither was it intended to be.

This country is a Republic with emphasis on true representation of the people, Government of the people by the people. These bunch of so called representative of the people including the Executive and the Legislative have been conning the people for too long.
I suggest that first all primaries should be held on one weekend just past Easter and not on some Tuesday. It should be mandatory that all states have it at the same time without any interference of pollsters etc and no results announced until the votes from all the states are in.

The public should be provided transportation to polling cites by the elections commission. Any candidate seeking office should have their name on the ballots that should be same and standard in all states.

The top three candidates regardless of party should then proceed to a general election on a weekend again past Labor day.
With similar accommodation to the voting public.

The US Senate, the most inefficient body is not representative of the people. It is makes no sense that the representation in the house was fixed through an amendment but the Senate left with two Senators from each state. CA, NY, FL, OH, PA, IL, etc have over 20 million people each as compared to NH, ID, DE, VT, ME. RI and others with less then 4 million each.

No other country in the world have elected Judges, DAs, Sheriffs etc that are politically aligned.

the editor of the washington post who made the comment about floridians whinning and due to the lack of winter.Is this guy that dumb, it is florida government, not floridians, we vote when we are told to vote, Maybe he should think before he runs his moth it makes him look like a real aass.
As far as a re-vote for florida,NO we voted
once count them,if they are going to ban the votes this time then do it permanent and let florida run itself,when these same people come to florida for vacation we can hit them with 140% torrist tax when they cross the state line.

Dear angelpoo12: No, not seating the delegates from Fl and MI is not a violation of the First Ammendment and Free Speech. Just because it has a snappy sound to say so, doesn't make it accurate. And the more times people cry wolf, the harder it is to defend free speech when it really is under the gun.

As for FL and MI, as a MD voter whose state * didn't * turn it's nose up at its own party, the only thing I really have patience for is to just split their votes 50-50% and move on. If you think this can be blamed on state party elites, guess again. Your politicians are your responsibility.

If Michigan and Florida can not be heard this Violates these two state's Freedom of Speech. If the DNC want to silance our states to have no say who else are they going to silance next? That is why I'm trying so hard to make our voices heard. Is this country moving to dictatorship? Iowa can have their say and Michigan can not. Why did New Hampshire Not get Penilized for Jumpping the Gun on Nevada? Please make into Law in 4 years To have EVERY ONE VOTE ON SUPER TUESDAY! That way every one has equal say in electing the delegates and have the SAME CHOICES on the ballot as states that vote earlier. Please do not discriminate Michigan and Florida NO MORE! Thank You.

My only comment is: as a lifelong Democrat born in DC, raised in Maryland, who is in his 30s but has lived in Florida for the last 15 years, I've never felt so abandoned by my party in all my life. I can only surmise that this treatment is some sort of revenge for the outcome of the 2000 election, which despite the official Democratic Party position, and the fact that the US Supreme Court actually decided it, we're still held responsible for it. Otherwise, they wouldn't hold us in such contempt this election season.

Here's some thinking outside the box:

Should Obama announce he's willing to accept the results in Florida, as voted, with the pledged delegates dimished to half their votes at the convention (like the Republicans)? This would net Hillary around 14-18 delegates, but he'd still be ahead by 100+ and might win over as many super delegates by resolving the mess for the party.

Crazy, or visionary?

For MI... caucus? Can Hillary object after the above? It sure would save a lot of time and money!

"Tapped" the main blog for the "American Prospect" online now at prospect.org takes the fascinating view that Hillary is using the uncertainty of FL and MI to pretend she hasn't already lost. If a redo vote is slated, she will have to face immediately that Obama has won, for having 1 million more popular votes. According to "Tapped" she can't allow a redo and can't not allow a redo, the uncertainty being needed. Either way she's done for. Works for me.

I concur with the article's comments. It seems to me that the Clinton-backed drive to count the votes from these primaries or to hold new ones merely supports the notion that she will say or do anything to win, ethical considerations set aside. She's smart, though, to let her husband and big money supporters do the bullying for her.

Florida's Republican governor and legislature were responsible for the primary being moved forward. The names of all nominees stayed on the ballot and no candidate officially campaigned in the state. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post had articles prior to the election stating that the Obama campaign was in Florida placing mannequin-like posters of Senator Obama near polling places. However, no candidate officially campaigned in the state. Given that it was not the Florida Democratic Party that moved the election forward but the Republican legislature, the Florida vote should be counted "as is". It is unfair to penalize Florida Democrats for the political maneuvers of the governor and legislature. Beyond this, it is in the interest of the Democratic Party for the DNC and/or state party to assume this cost. If Florida is not seated, and if this problem isn't resolved quickly, the Democratic Party will pay dearly in November.

The Michigan/Florida situation is another example of the current, increasingly popular, notion that we can make any decision we choose without having to accept the clearly articulated consequences of that decision. Please, can we finally at last accept some responsibility for ourselves and our actions. We certainly expect others to do so. If we decide to launch off on our own course of action in defiance of agreed-upon rules, then have the individual fortitude and grace to accept the consequences. If you want to blame the State Democratic Party for putting you into your difficult situation, fine, but don't blame the rest of the country for not allowing you to have your cake and eat it too. And Ms. Clinton doesn't exactly cloak herself in virtue by suggesting that taking responsibility for and living with the consequences of our decisions isn't all that important when those decisions don't seem to be working to our advantage. All of us presumably subscribe to a set of values that guide our conduct in life and those in the public arena are eager to trumpet those values. However, there are relatively few occasions in life when our deepest, core values are really tested, but it is only at those times when we realize how firm our grasp on those values really is. This campaign has provided an unusual number of opportunities for values-testing, and one of the candidates has not scored as well on the test as she probably thought she would when the her horizons were rosier and the pressures on her were more benign.

I have to wonder how the Democratic party bosses think. The put this guy, Howard Dean, a liberal from the quixotic state of Vermont who went from first to last in a couple primaries when he ran for president in charge of the DNC. The DNC is not competent enough to get their primaries aligned in enough time though they had years. Now they bow to one candidate's desire to change the primary dates because she thought she would easily win the nomination and didn't have to worry about two very large states, MI and FL, decided without approval to change the dates of their primaries after it had been settled And you all thought Bush was incompetent. Hell I wonder if Dean and the DNC know where the United State is. What a clown act. It is humorous though.

For all those who would exclude the Florida and Michigan voters because of "the rules".........the rules also say superdelegates can give Hillary the nomination even if Obama is leading in pledged delegates. So if that happens, get over yourselves.

Howard Dean should go. People in Penn., Florida and Michigan should think twice before they vote. This country's economy is in bad shape. Don't vote for someone because of your race and his or her race. Who can be best to help with this country's mess that Bush is leaving behind. Who can best help us to put dinner on the table and healthcare for all. Think in November who will be the president of the U.S.

I AM A VOTER FROM MICHIGAN. I THOUGHT THE VOTE WAS FAIR! It's not MY fault that Mr. OBAMA and EDWARDS (who WAS on the ballot then) both purposefully took their names off of our ballot. They didn't even try to get their names back on the ballot when they realized the vote was going to take place. It's not my fault that neither of them cared about the voters in this state. It's also not my fault that Edwards is no longer a viable candidate any more. So, what, should all the other states who had Edwards as a viable candidate on their ballots revote because now those votes weren't fair? I think not! simply absurd! Count the votes as they were or don't count them, plain & simple and let it be!

So Florida and Michigan defied the DNC because they wanted more influence in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President.

But the DNC enforced its rules, much to the surprise of Florida and Michigan pols. And much to the surprise of everyone, the race is so close that there is not a nominee as of the middle of March.

So now, Florida and Michigan want a 'do over' at the END of the nominating process, which will give them exactly what they wanted when they flouted the rules: an undue influence in picking the nominee.

NO WAY!

California moved its primary up to the earliest allowed date, February 5, in the hopes that we'd get some attention. But then so did a whole big bunch of other states, and we got hardly anyone to come all the way out to the Pacific Coast, where we're too big to campaign effectively (tell THAT to Texas), and our votes were just lost in the mush of Super Tuesday.

Heck, WE need a DO OVER, too!!!

WE need the respect that Florida and Michigan are trying AGAIN to get at the expense of the other 46 states (not counting Iowa and New Hamshire) the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Hey, Michigan and Florida, you took the risk and put your money on a bad bet.

If you don't have to live with it, all the rest of us will be mighty pissed.

Obama PURPOSEFULLY took his name off the ballot in Michigan. This was his CHOICE. No one forced him to take his name off OUR ballot. While the candidates weren't campaigning in the states, there WAS campaigning on behalf of the candidates. There was a huge movement to encourage Michigan voters to vote "uncommitted" and that would be a vote for Obama or Edwards. REMEMBER - John Edwards WAS still a viable candidate at the time that Michigan voted. Is it fair to revote now since the circumstances are completely different? Should every other state that had Edwards on the ballot be allowed to revote as well? This is simply ridiculous. Either let the votes stand as they did or do NOT count the votes at all. People either decided to vote or not vote, if they didn't vote, then that's their loss. If the candidates PURPOSEFULLY took their names off the ballot, that's their loss. Voters here in Michigan are VERY aware of the fact that Obama didn't care enough about our votes to leave his name on our ballot or try to get it back on.

Plain & simple - voters in Michigan & Florida voted once already, voting twice because one person doesn't like the results is undemocratic - Florida did NOT revote in 2000 when that screw up occurred. Respect the vote as is, don't punish the voters for the state's decision to move up the primaries. OR don't let the votes count and completely ensure that both states vote for John McCain in the fall. They certainly will if Obama is the candidate. Michigan voters are pissed that he doesn't care about this state, he made that VERY clear and continues to do so.

I voted in the Michigan Primary and am against a redo. This state is financially strapped and doesn't need the cost of a 'do over'. The DNC should just divide our delegates equally,awarding Obama and Clinton 50% each. This would help insure that our delegates were seated and may help one of the candidates reach the magic number of delegates before the convention without all the hoopla. Same goes for Florida!

On the presumption that it would be hard for anyone but a politician to create a worse mess for the primaries than the one we are in, I hereby propose a schedule for the Primaries for the 2012 election, much fairer then the mess we had this year. It leaves out Holy Week and Easter Week, but putting them back in moves the last primary back to just before the fourth of July. Delegate assignment to the various states would determine where in this run it would first be possible to have a majority of the votes, but if delegates and electoral votes are roughly proportional, then no majority can be reached before the second week in June. Fortuitously Easter break comes right at the transition to slightly larger states. Candidates with the money to make it to Easter have at least some viability.

07 Jan 12 Iowa
14 Jan 12 New Hampshire
15 Jan 12 Washington DC Alaska
22 Jan 12 Delaware Montana
29 Jan 12 North Dakota South Dakota
05 Feb 12 Vermont Wyoming
12 Feb 12 Hawaii Idaho
19 Feb 12 Maine Rhode Island
26 Feb 12 Nebraska Nevada
04 Mar 12 New Mexico Utah
11 Mar 12 West Virginia Arkansas
18 Mar 12 Kansas Mississippi
25 Mar 12 Connecticut Oklahoma
15 Apr 12 Oregon Kentucky
22 Apr 12 South Carolina Alabama
29 Apr 12 Colorado Louisiana
06 May 12 Arizona Maryland
13 May 12 Minnesota Wisconsin
20 May 12 Indiana Missouri
27 May 12 Tennessee Washington
03 Jun 12 Massachusetts Virginia
10 Jun 12 Georgia New Jersey
17 Jun 12 North Carolina Michigan
24 Jun 12 Ohio Illinois
01 Jul 12 Pennsylvania Florida
08 Jul 12 New York Texas California

In a winner take all format the Republican Primaries don't become decisive until perhaps Ohio. A proportional system can't be stampeded until July. Drama! Attention! Exhaustion! Everything the Media could want. Bloggers type their fingers to the bone about Memorial Day.

Hooray!!!!!

ac11, THANKS!

Thanks from the link to another great Obama video. I'll pass it along.

Every morning lately, my day begins with me, a widow alone, opening up Dipdive.com and now, this one, too, I'll bookmark. It'll never get old for me to see and hear America's young people with their earnest voices full of good will and hope. They are exactly what our country needs.

BTW, being old, white, and female, I ought to be Hillary's demographic, except I'm not, being just another mama for Obama '08.

Clinton will not win anything by a landslide. She will win the nomination if Obama is not around by the time of the convention,but not otherwise. He won't withdraw,so that leaves you folks only one option.

Pagun has it right. We all have to live with the decisions our leaders make whether good or bad. That's life. But that's why we like being a democracy - it allows us to remove incompetent leaders through an electoral process without having to wait for them to die. The idea of a do over ignores the basic idea that you have to live with consequences of your decisions. Or do the proponents of the do over suggest we ignore decisions made in previous elections? Florida and Michigan officials made their decisions. We should respect them enough to allow them live with the consequences of those decisions.

Watch Obama's new video, 'We are the Change' ... and remember what its all about and pass it on:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0mNDANincEU

In this mess, I think for the future of the Democratic Party, it might be good to let Hillary steal the nomination, go to the GE where McCain will mop the floor with her and as a result we will get rid once and forever of that couple of egomaniacs, Bill and Hillary, that have been a toxic for the progressive Democratic Party. Of course it is my opinion for consideration.

My previous post was the *practical* reason why Florida and Michigan's voters shouldn't be ignored.
The first part of DCLB's post is the *principled* reason: that nobody should be disenfranchised; every person's vote should be counted. I agree completely with that principle.
But another essential principle is that the votes must be counted in a fair way. It's just not a fair election if, after all candidates agree *not* to campaign in states that violate the party's scheduling rules, then one candidate violates the promise and campaigns anyway, and then -- surprise, surprise -- wins.
(Such reneging is unfair whether you like the party's rules or not. And we have to have some rules. We can't just have states bouncing over each other chaotically trying to be among the first to vote; if we allow that, we'll have primaries starting four years before the election.)
We should all (I know it's hard to do) put aside which candidate we want to win the nomination, and think about a fair way to resolve this problem. Whoever is to blame for getting us into this mess -- and there is plenty of blame to go around -- let's look to the future so we can make it right. And that requires giving the voters of Florida and Michigan a say in the democratic nomination, after they actually see and hear the candidates campaigning in their states. It is just as undemocratic to let the earlier tainted elections override the votes of the rest of the country as it is to deprive the voters of Florida and Michigan of a right to participate in the democratic (small d) process.

Mr. Martinez's arguments are not logically cohesive. He argues on one hand that there should be no revote in this states because it would not be fair to reward rulebreakers. On the other hand, he argues that people should not worry about the relative unfairness of their votes not being counted by the Democratic Party, because the party gets to decide what is in its own best interests.

If the party is free to disregard the unfairness of not giving people a say in the process, then the party is also free to disregard the unfairness of rewarding the rulebreaking states. The party gets to decide what is in its own best interests, and if it decides that changing the rules in the middle of the game is in its own best interests, then by Mr. Martinez's own arguments, it has every right to do so.

To dslb who posted: " Can you possibly move your gaze up from your navel staring obsession with process and realize that there is a core principle of democracy at stake, namely one person-one vote. "

To you and the other ridiculous people of your ilk, WAKE UP ! THERE IS NO SUCH PRINCIPLE !

If there was, we wouldn't have a U.S. Senate where the 480,000 people of Wyoming have the same amount of votes as the 35,000,000 people of California !

The Democratic Party is a PRIVATE organization. There is NO SUCH thing as your ridiculous so-called principle.

GET OVER IT !

If you don't like the rules of the Democratic Party, then do not voluntarily play in their game.

What is so hard to understand about this ? !

quick question to all the parents supporting a redo in Florida and Michigan.

Do you excuse your children's behavior when they break rules or when they say that their friends made them do it?

If Michigan/Florida democrats are p***** off they have a chance to change the leadership of the Florida democratic party.

Your article makes a good argument for why the national Democratic party has the *right* to reject all the Michigan and Florida delegates.
But the article ignores the real problem for all Democrats, and that is whether it would be *wise* for the party to exercise that right.
We want to win the general election in November. Whoever is the Democratic candidate for president can't afford to have the party refuse to seat Michigan and Florida at the end of August, and then try to win those states' electoral votes in the two-plus months that follow.
Somehow, therefore, those two states have to be allowed to participate in the nomination process, or else they won't buy into the results of that process.
And if McCain wins both Florida and Michigan, it's hard to imagine either Obama or Clinton winning the presidency.

I am in absolute awe of the level of arrogance it takes to advocate for the complete disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters because of ridiculous rules developed by an elite group of political insiders, led by a man who is well known to be prone to irrationality and extreme mood swings.

Can you possibly move your gaze up from your navel staring obsession with process and realize that there is a core principle of democracy at stake, namely one person-one vote.

Any rational person would understand that that principle should trump any other rules set up by party elites.

And arguing that the use of other undemocratic methods, i.e. superdelegates and caucuses, justifies your desire to disenfranchise the voters of two swing states is patently absurd.

You should rather be arguing that this election cycle should, once and for all, should teach us a lesson and lead the Democratic Party to do away with these antiquated and parternalistic approaches to choosing a presidential nominee.

It's like arguing that you shouldn't feed a starving child because two of his siblings died of starvation and he should receive the same treatment as they did.

My suggestion is that you either 1) admit that your current position rests entirely on your desire to see Mr. Obama as the nominee or 2) join the Republican Party, since they are the ones who get obsessed with sticking to "the rules".

As a private organization, the Democratic (BOY ! THERE'S a contradiction in terms) Party can make any rules they want. And change them in the middle of the game if they wish to also.

Therefore, to help the poor Floridians out of the mess they find themselves in, I announce a NEW political party where their votes WILL be counted ! Since I live on Maple Avenue, I name the new political party:

"THE MAPLE AVENUE PARTY" ! :)

Our nominees will be: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Jesse Jackson, and Sean Hannity !

To all Floridians (and Michiganers) PLEASE mail your votes to THE MAPLE AVENUE PARTY before July 4, 2008, and the one with the MOST votes will be our nominee !

( Unless of course I change the rules at some point and nominate myself as I am an ULTRADELEGATE who supersedes all others. :) )

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ! :)

Great idea, split the FL and MI votes 50-50 and move on. A do over should only take place if the politicians responsible for moving the date were denied their delegate or super delagate vote. He/she who commits the crime should do the time. We need to have consequences for illegal, immoral corrupt behavior

There is a principle here that has to be carefully addressed. The Democrats tried, and the Republicans tried half measures. The Dems were on much better practical grounds.

Because over the years Iowa and New Hampshire got exaggerated reputations with their early doings, politicians came to two less than useful conclusions. The first was that getting the attention of political parties early was good for the states politicians, and the second was that getting politicians into the state early was good for tourism. Because of that states decided to get into a line jumping game that would get customers thrown out of any amusement park in the country, possibly without getting their money back.

Winner take all primaries don't help the matter, since in early states many candidates reduce the percentage of the vote sufficiently that 25% can easily win. That makes stealing a party's candidacy, or leveraging an election, doable.

A reasonable primary season, with the big ticket states going last, spread over about six months would permit candidates to better explain themselves and their platforms. It would keep some marginal candidates in just a bit longer till their money ran out, complicating the ballots, but it would also keep marginal candidates alive longer in case the majors did something stupid or flatly illegal. It would also keep the party's messages in play longer, and maybe cause one or the other party to modify their platforms in response to electoral pressure. Give Iowa and New Hampshire the second week in January. Then every week, two or three at a time, from Wash DC and Wyoming, increasing in size till Texas, California, and New York vote just before the Fourth of July. Split delegates among the top three and undecided, undecided getting all of the votes of candidates below third place.

That would be interesting, entertaining, fair, and the front loaded states wouldn't have near as much perceived clout as now.

They would still have just bit of clout.

This whole nomination process has given birth to some twisted logic, but that's to be expected when the arguments are being made by advocates.

I have one fundamental question, are rules more important than fairness? Rules don't have to be fair, should we blindly support unfair rules?

One word..

Rules

The only thing funnier than Floridian outrage is the Hillarian suggestion that the original votes count. Move aside incompetence, here comes absurdity.

I would be very disgusted with the Democratic Hierarchy for eliminating MY vote from counting if I lived in Michigan or Florida. But lets not do an expensive do over...make those votes already on record STAND. I cannot believe that they can take away the people in those states right to be heard. HOW DARE THEY.

Mr. Martinez is correct on each and every point. Rather than offer additional support to his excellent arguments, I wish to expand on his notion that the system is not designed for total equity in the first place. Mr. Martinez has examined the nominating process; let us now turn our attention to the election process.

Those who cry foul that not every person and vote are treated equally are ignoring several points of fact.

Firstly, we do not live in a pure democacy like ancient Athens, we live in a federal republic. Federal means that the central government does not hold total power; it shares power with semi-autonomous states. Once we were like the Europe of today, a loose knit group of confederated but independent nations ceding some authority to a central government. Republic means that our representatives make our laws for us. Often, what the congress votes to pass would not be what the citizenry would enact by plebecite, as in the initiative process in California.

Secondly, the presidency is not decided by popular vote anyway. It is decided by the electoral college. Within this system there are intentional disparities. Wyoming, with a population of 480,000 and 3 electors, has a ratio of 1 elector to every 160,000 citizens; California, with a population of 38 million and 55 electors, has a ratio of 1 elector to every 690,000 citizens. The number of electors is equal to the number of seats apportioned in the House of Representatives, plus the two senators. This gives states with small populations a much greater voice in terms of the ratio of electors to citizens. Further, most states have a winner take all rule, while a few distribute the electors proportionately. Al Gore had 100,000 more popular votes than George Bush in 2000. The Florida recount was terminated by the U.S. Supreme Court. A careful non-binding recount done with representatives of both parties, excrutiatingly done over six months, showed that Gore actually won more votes in Florida than Bush. The Florida Secretary of State and the U.S. Supreme Court put George Bush in office, not the American people. This electoral college system is reflective of the U.S. being a federal union, as opposed to one state whose central government was all powerful. If the presidency were decided by popular vote, the individual states would not have the roll they play in the current system.

Thirdly, the constitution actually says nothing whatsoever about the president being decided by suffrage. It says that each state shall appoint electors to the electoral college. Originally, the individual state legislatures themselves decided to whom the state's electors would be committed. Eventually, each state on its own decided to allow the populous make that decision. Nothing has been changed in the constitution. Any state legislature could decide at any time to rescind this and resume the process of the state legislators choosing the electors. It is doubtful this would happen, but as Justice Scalia pointed out during the Florida recount, there is nothing whatsoever in the constitution regarding suffrage with concern to the election of the president.

We may not agree with the system, however we can only operate within the rules of the system. The only way we can deviate from the rules is to change the rules. And as Mr. Martinez points out, rules can only be changed fairly if changed between games, not during them.

tharriso,
public educator

I live in FL and voted and I think it's faier that we don't count. Blame the folks in Tallahassee that voted to move the date up even though they were told about the punishment if they did.

If only the Democratic National Committee had such common sense.

If Hillary Clinton's people are so concerned with the right of the people of MI and FL to vote, why did they agree to the rules that disenfranchised them in the first place? (Answer: It didn't matter until it mattered.)

It doesn't appear feasible to have new primaries--money/logistics/state involvement. If caucuses are the only way to go, then let it be. Each candidate would have it's chance to build an organization.

The way I see it is I got screwed out of a vote in the Florida Primary through no fault of my own. I blame the republican controlled legislature in Florida and a hard headed Democratic national committee who were told as all this was happening that they should fix it and they kept doing nothing. I have only one option left. If my candidate is the nominee for the Democratic party I will vote for that nominee. If not I will simply go fishing and not vote at all. I will encourage all my friends to do the same. Now, if they should fix this mess fairly so I can have a say in all this before the general elections, then I will vote for the Democratic nominee whomever that may be. Either fix this mess fairly or possibly lose my vote and maybe many others, Howard Dean.

You make one error in your analysis of this situation, but it's an error that actually supports the contention that Florida ought to be left as is, without delegates:

"No one campaigned in these races!"

This is only partly true. I've heard reports that Obama supporters lobbied over the phone with Michigan voters to vote "uncommitted." I imagine that Clinton's campaign also did some undercover campaigning there. More seriously, after agreeing to withdraw from Michigan, Clinton "mistakenly" left her name on the ballot there, which somehow now entitles her to claim the state as a victory. Huh?

The more serious case, though, is Florida. Most everyone outside of the Clinton campaign itself agrees that Michigan's results are flawed, but both Clinton and Obama were on the Michigan ticket. However, despite the agreement not to campaign there, where was Clinton during the two or three days leading up to the primary? In Florida. What was she doing there? According to her campaign, it was a "fundraiser." What is the difference between political fundraising and political campaigning on the part of a candidate? Not much.

What is more, Clinton publicized the fact that she was in Florida, and her campaign made sure that the events made the evening news. Most seriously, Clinton even made a promise in the day or two before the vote guaranteeing that Florida's delegates would be seated. Sorry, but this is campaigning. I'll go further. This is pandering.

And, in addition to the excellent rationale you offer from Geof Givens about doubly enfranchising the state, this campaigning to seat the delegates on Clinton's part is precisely why another vote would be just as tainted as or even more tainted than the first. Clinton has poisoned the well in Florida for Obama, forcing him to ally with the DNC in opposing the seating of the delegates. Does Obama really have a fair chance of winning an election there now? There is no chance that a re-vote could happen on a fair playing ground because Clinton has taken advantage of the situation to paint herself as a crusading saint on behalf of all Florida voters. This goes beyond mere spin and campaign rhetoric. The situation of the DNC's original decision to strip delegates actually comes back to disadvantage Obama should a re-vote happen, aided by Clinton's decision to break rules and campaign there and to advocate reversing the DNC rules, which Obama and Edwards rightly honored.

Just like it seems insane to doubly enfranchise Florida for flouting the rules, it seems equally idiotic to doubly enfranchise Clinton for doing the same.

A fairer solution would be to have the delegates apportioned according to the current national delegate count, which would actually award more to Obama than to Hillary. If she is offered 50/50, she should take it and be grateful.

Andres, you nailed it. The representatives of the people of Florida set the early date, knowing full well they were breaking the rules, and after being told they would be penalized, to which the Florida legislature said, "bring it on." It got brought on. Hillary was with the DNC before she was against them (and it suited her interests, party and fairness be damned).

Did Floridians not have the chance to tell their representatives to abide by the rules or go ahead with the early date or not? (Hint: yes, they did).

Did the party not give them ANOTHER chance to get their stuff together? (Hint: yes, they did).

Then why is anyone complaining? It looks like Michigan is going to manage to hold a timely re-do. If they do, their delegates should still be cut by half.

More importantly, what the hell is the matter with Florida (I mean, aside from favoring Hillary and wanting to have their cake and eat it too)?

Let's get things straight here. It was not the Florida Democratic Party's decision to hold the primary on January 29th. Everybody blames the state party, but it turns out it wasn't them who made the decision. It was the Republican-controlled state legislature and Republican governor Charlie Crist who decided that both parties should hold their primaries on Jan. 29, regardless of the consequences. It ended up working out for them, because the GOP only stripped the state Republicans of half their delegates. It's inherently unfair to blame Floridian Democrats for a mess they didn't make.

Revotes should be held. I know legally there is no obligation, but for fairness' sake, the Democrats of FL and MI have the right to get their voices heard.

I'm an Obama supporter and I live/vote in a state that obeyed the rules and didn't try to jump the gun. That said, I don't get the vehemence against some kind of re-vote in Michigan and Florida. There does not seem to be anything in DNC rules that forbids holding both a beauty contest and a real primary or caucus to allocate your delegates. The only limitation is that the vote to allocate delegates be held between date X and date Y (sorry, don't remember the exact dates - late Jan. and early June?).

Given that it's not against the rules, why not allow the scheduling of new votes in Florida and Michigan? Surely the principle of democratic representation in the nominating process can be allowed to weigh against the principle of not letting them benefit from having "broken the rules" (scheduling a beauty contest did NOT break the rules - the rules just say that it WAS a beauty contest and the results can't be used to allocate delegates).

And surely the self-interest of the party in minimizing voter resentment in Florida and Michigan by allowing them to have a "do-over" can be weighed against the parties "proprietary interest" in excluding those voters from participation.

To extend the original analogy, saying that Florida and Michigan can't schedule new votes to allocate delegates is like telling the child the day after he chose the afternoon cookie, "You know, I've decided you can't have dessert for the rest of the year, even though that wasn't part of the rules I laid out for you yesterday when you chose the cookie."

Michigan and Florida could have elected to follow the rules and either leave the date unchanged or move up to a date that was within DNC rules. They violated the rules, they should incur the consequences.

Why should Michigan and Florida get a brand new vote, for violating the rules, when many other states who didn't violated the rules get nothing?

The only reason the Clinton campaign is pushing as hard as it is for a "do over" in Michigan and Florida is because they won those states. Without recognition of Michigan and Florida it's basically over for the Clinton campaign.

This column is right on. This is not a government-sponsored election and it has nothing to do with disenfranchisement. If it did, all states would be required to hold primaries, not caucuses, and we would probably hold a national primary election on one date. Florida and Michigan moved their primaries for specific reasons: one, to force the candidates to focus on their states and take their issues into account, and two: to have a greater influence in the outcome of the nominating process by holding their primaries before those of the majority of states. They hedged their bets on the assumption that the nomination would have been decided by super tuesday, and if it had, you can bet these states wouldn't be clamboring for a re-vote now. They lost their bet, and that's their own problem. Perhaps the voters in Florida should have better anticipated the potential consequences of their actions and pressed their lawmakers not to move their primary.

How about having a call in vote for Florida and Michigan.
1-888-DEMVOTE 1 for Obama
1-888-DEMVOTE 2 for Hillary
The DNC has proven itself to be less proficient than American Idol. This would be an appropriately rediculous ending to this fiasco.

Ryan Seacrest could announce the results the following night..."Barack and Hillary please join me center stage...."

Stumped, once again you're right.

I really have to wonder what DNC leaders in Michigan, Florida AND on the national level were thinking when they cooked up this scheme.

In light of shenanigans in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 (don't think we didn't notice), is the DNC merely trying out the idea of "do-over" for...OTHER elections? 8-)

I can't wait to vote for Obama in my state of North Carolina, especially after Hillary just told me she's writing it off. Write-off away, baby!

"If both political parties can choose their own nominee by any means they desire, then the taxpayer should never be a part of the process. If the parties do their own picking and choosing, they can do their own paying as well."

This is true. This is the one reason I feel that people who voted in Florida (not sure if Michigan was funded by the state) were disenfranchised; public funds were used.

Which brings me back to my last point: why are public funds being used to fund elections for private institutions? It's just another example of how these two behemoths have become way too entangled in *our* government.

The fact that it has become so difficult for people to differentiate between the elections of private, non-governmental entities like the DNC and the RNC and those of actual public institutions like state and Federal governments is just one more example of how harmful these institutions have become to the American experiment.

Everyone needs to start telling themselves this over and over:

The DNC and the RNC are NOT synonymous with my government. They are private institutions that consolidate money and power to achieve their goals for the country.

Say it until you recognize the fact that our government should serve *our* needs, not the needs of political parties.

If the Knitting Club of Alaska wanted to send up a candidate for president and held a closed primary for all members living in the state of its namesake, and then got that person's name on all ballots in all 50 states, would anyone be upset? Or, have too many of us become too reliant on these two groups to give shape and voice to what we, the people, would like to see in our government?

If both political parties can choose their own nominee by any means they desire, then the taxpayer should never be a part of the process. If the parties do their own picking and choosing, they can do their own paying as well. The taxpayers should only pay for general elections, not primaries. As far as Florida Democrats voting Republican this year simply because their delegates weren't seated, that would be kind of shortsighted, given the harm that the national Republican party has inflicted on this country in the last 7 years.

FL US House members are refusing a mail in primary digging in their heels to try to use the Jan 29 illegal primary results. The train wreck is piling up as Dems can not stop war and can not govern their own primary. Priceless!

Here, Here, way to go. You are speaking way too logically for the dem party. The party of nuance.

I say the dem party, Dean specifically, "strap on a pair" and stick with the original ruling. Otherwise, in addition to the controversial ruling, we will have endless controversial primary schennanigans to deal with--especially with florida!!

Wall-to-wall carping about this situation has been going on for weeks, but I've yet to hear anyone with a megaphone blame the real culprits: The Democratic National Committee.

How absurdly stupid of them to perpetuate this idiocy of "sainted" primary states - New Hampshire, Iowa, etc.

Instead, to give all voters a fairer chance to judge the candidates, they should exclude delegates from ALL states selected before a date certain - say, 90 days before the convention. They might also specify that voting delegates be selected only in OPEN primaries (no caucuses). No mention of any individual state should be made.

The Dems, as usual, are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by their pig-headed devotion to Political Correctness.

And these idiots want to run our country?

Debating who is to blame for the problem of no delegates from Michigan and Florida does not accomplish anything.
This nomination is far too important to the future of the Democratic Party and for this nation to exclude any state.
For the Denver convention to be legitimate in the eyes of the rest of the world, the DNC should seek a means to help these two states redo their primaries and send sufficient number of delegates to equitably represent Democrats in each state.
Redo primaries will allow the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates to make their case before the people in Michigan and Florida and allow voters to decide whom they prefer to lead the party - and that is the only fair way to solve this problem.

Parties in any state are allowed by the law of that state to hold primaries or caucuses. If they chose to hold a primary, the state, or rather the individual counties, picks up the bill.

If the party should so agree they might just appoint delegates of their choosing. The National Party has no say.

The Florida Central Committee may therefore abrogate the election of delegates and if state law so permits select the slate. That the slate was actually by District the winning delegates may not concern the National party as long as they were credentialed by the State party.

The whole primary set up is wacky to begin with. Since it was decided by the Democratic Party not to count the vote that's the way it should stand, period.

I originally thought there should just be 'do overs'. However, it sounds like after spending millions of dollars, there will likely be just as many unhappy people, if not more. I think Hillary's camp will be unhappy if things don't go her way and she ends up with significantly less votes than in the original primaries (even if she wins). I think people will be mad at Obama if Hillary wins by about the same margin and millions of dollars were spent for nothing. The Obama camp will be upset either way because waiting for the re-votes will significantly delay the eventual primary decision (which may or may not give the nomination to him), and a delay allows for the strengthening of McCain's campaign as we get closer to the general election.

Let's face it, Florida just plain blew it - once again. Re: Michigan - I'm not hearing much either way. I have friends from Michigan who feel that there shouldn't be a do over, as they had resigned themselves to their votes not counting when the state moved the election up. They've stated that they ultimately think a do over will be a waste of everyone's time and money.

Can't all the elected delegates be seated at the convention, don't count Florida and Michigan towards the delegate total (AS WAS ORIGINALLY AGREED TO BY EVERYONE), but find a way to give them some kind of voice. Maybe allow impassioned speeches on behalf of each candidate according to the percentage of votes they got. It won't make Hillary happy, but let's face it, it's just another instance when the DNC 'rules' in this election cycle haven't gone her way. And, who knows, maybe ultimately the 'supers' will come through for her (more screwy DNC rules as well, but I guess the chips will fall where they fall).

Stripping the votes because they broke the rules is fair (despite the fact that I live in Michigan and am pretty pissed the my vote doesn't count). However, saying that they should just split them 50-50 because it would be the cheapest option is not going to be good for anyone. Let's be consistent here, because cheap never has or will be the objective. If anything the extra cost these states would have to fork over to get their delegates seated should be punishment enough for moving the primaries in the first place.

I think a do over is inevitable in Florida. Why not take a bow toward following the rules and still penalize Florida a percentage of its delegates?

This is an eminently sane and reasonable column. Just to reiterate-- everyone (state parties, national party, candidates) knew what was going to happen if the state parties decided to move their primaries up; the state parties did it anyway; the national party imposed a penalty (still giving the state parties time to change their minds); the candidates agreed to the penalty. This is an open and shut case.

If the Democrats really feel badly about the voters in MI and FL who went to vote anyway in their primaries (knowing full well their votes would not count), then, as other readers have suggested 1) penalize the states by halving their delegation at the convention (including superdelegates) a the GOP has done; and 2) split the delegations 50-50.

This seems fair all around.

If caucuses are the only way to get the delegations seated at the convention, do you think Hillary will say...we have to do what it takes to seat the delegates? No, she will say that unfairly favors Obama. Hillary is about Hillary. The more I get reminded of the Clinton style of politics...McCain doesn't look so bad. Especially after he wouldn't take the red meat offering from Hannity last night.

Ok, since it's PI day (March 14th - get it; 3.14 >?), seems like a good day to address this issue (again).

The state parties knowingly broke DNC rules. The DNC runs the convention, different than a general election.

NO, you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game. The votes don't count, and both states knew it LONG AGO.

That said, how about a compromise? Subtract the number of delegates that would have been seated from both states from the final count to win the Democratic nomination. And then find out what happens. You can do the math right now...

Simple, yes, but so is PI.

As for the cookie analogy, I'd suggest some type of dessert around 1:59 local time today (3.14159...).

If the DNC does not stick by the original rules, they should save money in the future by having no rules. Just call up the head of each state party and ask who that state's pick is.

If you do not follow the rules you have anarchy.

It is amusing that Hillary is considered the "champion" of the voters. If she were one vote behind she would be against seating the delegations. Remember, in Nevada, she was against making it easier for people to vote because she thought it favored Obama voters. When she won she said...nevermind.

Please see www.discussrace.com

I see your favored position, your intent here is to make a case in favour of Barrack no matter how rediculous it maybe. I agree with the respondent with the analogy of the mother and the maid but you overlooked the exact likeness that offers. Why? because it makes too much sense? Look Florida's Democratic primary vote should stand no redo and the SUPERDELEGATES should honor the decision and vote for Hillary. You talked about Barrack cutting into Hillary's early lead how would that effect the decision in Florida? those voters all heard the reports via the media yet they cast their votes for her. Were these people living in a cacoon somewhere and not aware of what was being reported in the media?
Your position tells me that you are not interested in a fair resolution you want YOUR RESOLUTION WHICH IS "GIVE BARRACK THE NOMINATION" or to put another deny Hillary the opportunity to win the nomination. I am sure you are better than that, Don't be like the Mexican Govt. of yesteryear.

As a Michigan resident, I do NOT support a do-over of the primary via standard election, mail-in or caucus. Michigan's primary should NOT count at all. Rules are rules, and the State was told upfront that the primary would not count (on the Democratic side). The State Legislature ignored this (mostly due to the Governor). If we had just left our primary as previously scheduled, Michigan's voice would have been heard, and I like so many would have made the effort to share our vote; however, since the vote was NOT going to count, many, many, many of us did NOT go to the polls. If you count the votes now, the Democratic Party risks losing my vote as an independent voter. I was willing to register as a Democrat if that was necessary to vote in the Democratic Primary, but why bother when your vote isn't going to count. If we change the rules now, what do we teach our children about consequences? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's about politics, and there are usually no consequences involved.

Given the Democrats proportional seating of delegates and the probability that in a complete re-do Clinton may perform as she did in Ohio and Texas. Clinton would net only 10 delegates or less. It a ridiculous waste of the extimated $30+ million that these re-dos would cost. Seat the delegates proportionately in Florida where the names were on the ballot and split them in Michigan. You will wind up with the same result with $30 million more in your pocket to spend on the general election.

It was the Republican controlled legislature in Florida that determined the date, by attaching the primary date as an add-on to a bill about voting machines. If nothing is done , then the DNC would allow Republicans to disenfranchise Democrats.

Nice work!!!!!!!!

This "rules are rules" talk is out and out nonsense. The states paid for these elections, and they rightly decided when they would hold them. I don't care what rules the DNC wants to impose: if they want to accept the state subsidies in holding these primaries then they damn well better accept the outcomes.

Anyone who thinks unelected party officials should get to dictate anything to sovereign governments should move their unAmerican rear-ends out of the country.

Neither state will show a real backbone and force the issue, unfortunately, and the disgusting hold the two major parties have on our political system will continue to grow.

I live in Michigan and voted in the Democratic primary in January. I was considering an uncommitted vote, because I was truly torn between the leading candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) at that time. As it happened, 3 days before the primary I had a call from the Obama campaign -- asking for money. I was struck by the fact that Obama wanted my money but not my vote. It was his decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot; something he did not choose to do in Florida. Because of that phone call, I voted for Sen. Clinton, who had the courtesy to ask for my vote. If we had a do-over, I would likely vote for Obama.

A final note regarding this comment you admired so much: "Allowing these states to have a redo actually doubly enfranchises them.They get a massive influence in the initial process (via media coverage of the beauty contests), and a second opportunity to control the results at the end of the process." If you believe Michigan had "a massive influence in the initial process...", you weren't paying attention. We had NO influence. There was NO campaigning here (except by Mitt Romney). And the desperate economic situation in our state did not have an impact in the campaign whatsoever. I want a do-over, because Michigan matters. Caucuses would be great. They're relatively inexpensive, party-operated, no cost to taxpayers.

Does anyone truly advocate that Michigan (and Florida) have NO delegation at the National Convention? Please! Don't be so self-righteous about "following the rules." Our state legislature made a mistake, but it can be corrected.

Nobody stopped anyone from voting. Just as many Clinton voters stayed home as Obama voters stayed home. It was free and fair. Seat the delegates or Florida will vote Republican in November. Democrats really lack common sense.

As a former resident of Michigan and current resident of Florida, I'm amused that "my two states" are involved in this childish situation. I took the time to change by registration from Dem to Rep last November so that I could vote in a primary race that had some real consequence. Now I suppose I'll be disenfranchised from the do-over because I wasn't technically a Democrat in January, after the Democratic party told me that my vote wasn't going to count. Its enough to make your head spin -- but provides an excellent reason why state governments, who pick the pockets of all voters, shouldn't be funding these private organizations' delegate selection methods. We don't ask the state government to run elections for labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce, the AMA or the Boy Scouts -- why do the Dems and Reps think they are entitled to government funding?

BTW: Many voters in FL went to the polls in Jan due to a statewide proposition to rollback property taxes for long-time homeowners -- an issue that appeals to older homeowners, Ms Clinton's base. As for the Democrats being forced to have an early primary due to dirty Republican tricks -- every Democratic representative in the legislature (save one) voted to move the primary up.

I'm pretty sure svreader is Bill Clinton's naughty side... they let it out to play here on WAPO's pages so it doesn't get itself in any more trouble. And by trouble, I mean interns.

It's nice to read something written by someone who understands the legal aspects of this.

svreader: get a life.

This is an eminently sane and reasonable column. Just to reiterate-- everyone (state parties, national party, candidates) knew what was going to happen if the state parties decided to move their primaries up; the state parties did it anyway; the national party imposed a penalty (still giving the state parties time to change their minds); the candidates agreed to the penalty. This is an open and shut case.

If the Democrats really feel badly about the voters in MI and FL who went to vote anyway in their primaries (knowing full well their votes would not count), then, as other readers have suggested 1) penalize the states by halving their delegation at the convention (including superdelegates) a the GOP has done; and 2) split the delegations 50-50.

This seems fair all around.

Rules are rules. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Voter Disenfranchisement is something I was always proud that Democrats worked AGAINST.

People's votes should count. The author's logic that the primary is somehow more about the national party then it is the people they are designed to represent and therefore, the people should get over it... is callous and kind of hilarious.

I mean if you want Florida to go red in November, sure, stick to the argument that their votes shouldn't count - that's a great way to say the Democratic Party is concerned with your needs.

This article was ridiculous.

I don't understand why there is all this hand wringing about the vote in Florida and Michigan. They went against the rules anyway. However, to make folks happy, the simplest solution would be to award both the candidates half the delegates each. Seems to me that the main issue is who gets to go to the National Convention. Everyone can go, half for one candidate and the other half for the other candidate. That way, no one gets any advantage.

Florida and Michigan can have their primaries when they were supposed they were supposed to have their primaries...in June. And I hope this serves as a warning for all the Alzheimers patients in Florida and out of work automobile manufacturers in Michigan they cannot change things around when rules and procedures are in place to govern how the nominating process will be done in FL and MI.

If the DNC fails enforce its rules now, it will permanently lose its ability to enforce the rules.

The Republicans handled the Florida and Michigan primaries much more intelligently--they took away half their delegates. This punished the state parties, but did not make the voters feel entirely disenfranchised.

The flaw in these arguments is that neither the Democratic voters nor the state Democratic party set the date of the election. It was set by the Republican state legislature who should not be allowed to take away the votes of the peolple.

Barry Obama PLEDGED he'd seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan. THen he lost
and now his word is worth Do-doo

He's balless

Well here is one person who agreed with you on Tuesday and again today. I used to live in Michigan and I can tell you that no one I know bothered to vote in January because they didn't think it counted. Rules are rules and how can the DNC expect people to respect them as a party if they don't abide by the rules they set? How many people will stay home in November because they feel disenfranchised by two state parties grabbing control of the election from the other 48 states who followed the rules? I would urge Howard Dean to not allow Florida to ruin another election the way they did in 2000.

The party leaders in Michigan and Florida knew full well the consequences of their actions. Here's another analogy. The parent DNC tells the state parties "If you behave in such a manner, you'll be punished." Like a rebellious young teen who shoplifts some candy on a dare from their friends, the state parties decided to move up their primaries anyway. When they were caught, the parent DNC grounded them. Perhaps they believed the DNC was bluffing about the punishment, or they were simply too big to be punished. Now that they're grounded, they still want to eat the stolen candy. As a parent, what would you do?

I am from Florida a did vote in the primary...most of the property owners I know did as well. The turn out was because of a new property tax amendment, NOT the demo primary. I suspect the vote would have been closer had all the renters gone to the polls too, yet I haven't seen anything written about it. Those who don't own property in the state had no reason to show up.
I don't want a revote simply because I don't trust the state to pull off a fair election in the time left.
"Fair" to all would be to eliminate half the delegates as a penalty for going early, then divide the remaining delegates in half and award them 50/50. Clinton "won" 50% of the vote and she gets her wish...anything else in my view would be theft.

It would be ironic if it was Florida again that screws up the entire country. We have enough of malfunctioning voting machines, Brokaw calling the elction too early, endless recounts, and most of all, their hanging chads. They opted out of the primaries -- so they are out !!!

Rules are rules. Florida and Michigan didn't care about every vote counting when they moved up the primaries. The Democratic candidates agreed IN WRITING that those votes wouldn't count. But now that those votes are needed to boost Hillary's delegate and popular vote count, she's spinning a message about democracy. Please. Who doesn't think that if she were ahead she'd be spinning a case that rules are rules? I can't believe that so many give credence to her spin.

I'd say either stick to the rules and seat no one, or strip half the delegates in Florida and Michigan like the Republican Party did and allow them to be seated with the voting results as they are. But something tells me Hillary wouldn't stand for that since her objective is to boost her numbers NOT see that all voters vote.

This is a blatant attempt on behalf of the Clinton camp to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama. It may take a village to raise a child, but it takes a Clinton to burn it down.

Thanks for spelling this out. The Florida effort to move up the primaries (as in Michigan as well) was a move of greed and arrogance (greed being that important primaries bring a ton of money to the state). What this country needs are examples of integrity and humility. Clearly Florida and Michigan Dems (and, people like Hillary, Ed Rendell, Gov. Nelson) have no humility to say mea culpa, so the rest of the DNC can at least say that integrity matters and the time to speak up was before the primaries started.

A redo is possible in several formats, but would it make any difference. If either candidate were to get something like 80% of the vote it still wouldn't put either over the required majority. The actual result is unlikely to produce more than the current standoff, slightly reducing or adding to Obama's delegate lead. the Super Delegates still make the final call.

Still, the most obvious redo mechanism is to allow any voter who voted in the Democratic primary in January, and any voter on the local Democratic phone list, to go to the local Democratic Party headquarters in June and vote. The Party could send its Primary Election mailer to everyone on that list. That ought to produce a Democratic Party choice that reflects that active and passively accepting members views. It wouldn't totally eliminate crossovers who try to screw up Democratic Primaries, because there ARE Republicans who keep their Democratic Party registration exactly for that reason. This year, since they had to register as republican to vote Republican, for or against McCain, Gullianni, and so forth. That wouldn't be outrageously expensive, and it would be normal political advertising for June anyway.

It wouldn't actually make a difference, though.

I just don't get it. The primary is a DNC function, part of a larger process to choose a candidate, tight? The DNC said that if FL and MI advanced their primary dates, the primaries wouldn't count, right? They did it anyhow, right? OK, so the primaries don't count. The delegates can go to the convention but the FL and MI delegates don't vote for the candidates. Subtract half the total of FL and MI delegates from the total needed to secure the nomination and that's how many Barack or Hill need to get the nod. Why is it any more complicated than that?

Wow, I hope I get this in before the Propaganda Wars begin in earnest. (The last post I read about the "slums" was an indication the nut-jobs are about to begin their daily Sludge Session.)

I'm not sure that I have a stake in this, as I am a registered Independent and resident of neither state. But I certainly agree with Andres' piece. The rules are the rules--the candidates agreed to them--and there should be consequences for breaking them.

From my perspective the initial DNC ruling should stand; no delegations at all. (I think the 50-50 split idea is only cosmetic hijinks and undercuts the principle. ) Don't seat them.

This does NOT disenfranchise anyone. The real exercise and expression of a voter's political will occurs in the general election. (As an Independent, I don't feel the slightest "disenfranchisement" because I am not eligible to vote in my state's primary.)

Finally, to the first ten posters, let me say what a delight it is to read thoughtful, articulate commentary. I'm glad you got those into before the Shriekers take over.

Ok, I am against a revote also, but as you said, this is not a Constitutional crisis. If the Demo wants to change the rules, whom are we or you to tell them not to?

When many of the states in the country advanced the date of their primaries, how can you make a rule punishing just two states? Depriving the voting rights for disobedience is great in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy. And what is worse, the states did conduct a primary with huge voter participation. Don't give me this nonsense that people vote and you deny their votes. The rule the DNC made was made in a hurry to stop a stampede of states moving their primaries, it was never intended to prevent FL and MI from exercising their right to vote in this democracy. So count the votes in the primary already done, and don't talk about unjust rules. If rules determine the outcome, Sadam Hussein will still be president of Iraq. Democratic rights are far far stronger than arbitrary and capricious rules. When rules are in conflict with democracy in a democratic country, the democratic principles govern: One vote for one person. Make or modify the rules that conform to democratic rights.

Martinez is right.

Mrs. Clinton's insistence that she wants those votes and she's going to have them regardless of what the rules were and what she agreed to originally is frankly offensive. She lied about being willing to comply with the rules and she misled the voters of Iowa and NH early in the campaign when she claimed to back the rules.

I don't care whether Iowa and NH vote first or not, but I do care very much that whoever sits in the White House understands that they are NOT above the law, even if their name is Bush or Clinton and they think they're entitled to the presidency. Her willingness to bend the rules in Florida tells us all we need to know about her and I don't believe for one millisecond that her concern for Florida voters would be nearly so great if the shoe was on the other foot. This is not about the voters; it is entirely about the Clintons getting what they want however they can.

Incidentally, I would happily sign a petition to sell Florida to the Cubans. Or any other country that we could palm it off on, but whoever takes it would have to agree to take the entire Bush-Clinton clan as part of the deal. It's the only possible way to restore democracy in this country.

In this day of information technology, how can anyone claim that they didn't know about Obama or Clinton or Edwards? Sure, the candidates themselves couldn't come and campaign in Florida, but their names, platforms, performances etc had been plastered across the tv headlines, the newspapers, the radio talk shows for months. . . each candidate had a grass roots campaign going state-wide, plus they all had fundraisers too. I voted in the FL Primary fully informed - because I made it my business to be informed. Anyone who relies on rallies to "learn" about a candidate is equivalent to someone "learning" about music by attending a rock concert.