Solving ClintObamaDean-gate in Michi-Florida
To: Howard Dean
Cc: HRC, BHO
Democrats have a problem -- all Democrats, both of the presidential campaigns, and especially, Howard Dean. The solution is to ask Democratic voters to come up with a solution.
What is the problem? Michigan and Florida, of course. Party bosses, well meaning and striving sincerely for an answer, have been unable to come up with a way to produce a fair result from those states that will allow the voice of millions of voters there to be heard. The problem has been passed back and forth between party leaders in the states, Howard Dean, and some major Democratic donors.
Now, by conventional analysis, they can't solve the problem because a. any solution that helps Clinton will be blocked by Obama, b. any solution that helps Obama will be blocked by Clinton, and c. nobody wants to pay for any solution, even if the hopeless dilemma of (a) and (b) could be solved.
Furthermore, in the words of Moshe Dayan, "If there is no solution, there is no problem." And, making matters worse, everyone is mad at Dean in those states, and Dean is mad at the state leaders for not following the plan laid out by the party.
The problem with this benign neglect policy is that any solution -- including a non solution -- will make someone angry. It gets worse. A non solution is guaranteed to make the voters in those states angry. And provide fodder -- well justified, by the way -- for the McCain campaign this fall.
"These people want to lead the country at a time of war, but they can't even organize a primary season or a convention."
The solution -- offered free of charge to all my fellow Democrats -- is for the Democratic Party to hold a national mail-in election, even an electronic one, asking Democratic voters to choose between 3-4 solutions, and encouraging all Democrats to participate on the basis of what they think is fair.
With 3-4 solutions on the initial e-mailing, one can be written by the Clinton campaign, or to suit it; one by or for Obama; one by the Democratic National Committee; and one by the party leaders of the leaders of the states.
This solution can be organized in a matter of days, and conducted over 1-2 weeks, possibly with a runoff if no answer gets a first-ballot majority.
It has the following advantages:
1. Democratic Party voters are a lot smarter, and fair minded, than the party leadership may think. Any solution they come up with is likely to be better than the party's leaders, who by the way, haven't led us to any solution so far.
2. Such a solution will have legitimacy. A decision worked out in conference rooms and focus groups won't. To put it another way: It gets Howard Dean off the hook.
It has enough legitimacy, in fact, so that it would be difficult for either candidate or their supporters to object to the result. They might feel hurt, but after taking part in a process like this, they'd have to admit the people's solution is the best.
3. This idea will energize the Democratic Party. Mr. Dean, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama all make regular genuflections to the voters. They want to hear our ideas. They share our concerns.
But in this case, they'd be really trusting us. Not just sending out a form letter, like we get from each of the campaigns and from Mr. Dean, thanking us for support, and asking for more money. They'd be listening with their ears, and hearts, not their mouths and their signature machines.
It would probably raise a lot of money too -- worth mentioning since it's the only thing politicians from either party seem to care about.
The only disadvantage of my proposal is, it resembles the device used by Richard Nixon in his famous Checkers Speech. Well, any port in a storm. If you think about it, there is something ironically delicious in using a Nixonian device to achieve Jeffersonian ends.
If it worked for my late friend Mr. Nixon, it can work for ClintObamaDean-gate. It's the best answer to the Michi-Florida disaster, and one likeliest to produce a unified party and a Democratic victory in November. Or December, depending on how long it takes the Supreme Court to decide who won in Florida.
-30-
Gregory Fossedal, foss@freedmansbank.com, is co-founder and CEO of the New Freedmans Bank, and the author of "Direct Democracy in Switzerland" and "The Democratic Imperative."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The popular vote is what should count here...the people are NOT who is at fault here...the politicians are who made the mess. Let the PEOPLE have their vote. The only reason everyone sees this is as such a problem is because they assume they KNOW the outcome already or there wouldn't be a problem. Count the popular vote...again...the PEOPLE didn't cause it...the politicians did...and after all, it will be their president too, so why would anyone want to win an election knowing it was two states short. Sad.
Hillary and Obama agreed to shut out MI & FI...the only way to seat the delegates is to split 50/50 this is not that hard.
They agreed not to campaign. What you are propising is to let Obama stal Clinton's votes - at least in Florida
Fl and MI broke the rules. Letting them vote agin sets a really dangerous precedent. In four years time every state will rush to the frint, knowing they can go again if the race is close (and you have supreme polical animals like Billery and their hacks to fight for it - to say nothing of the thinly disguised Rebuplican attack poodles masqueading as concerned Dems mouthing off about democratic rights and disenfranchisement of voters)
Let's all vote agin! Those of us who voted for Hillary in california who have changed our minds would like to recast our ballots. Her tactics have poisoned our view of her ability to lead.
This is only an issue because Hillary Clinton is trying to make it an issue. And she only started caring about this after it became apparent she's going to lose to Obama, so she needs to find some way, by hook or by crook, to try to take the nomination.
Want a solution? Split the delegates, seat both states. Simple. Everyone knew what the rules were, and these states went ahead anyway. It's like deciding you are not going to vote on the first Tuesday in November because you're too busy, so you show up a week later and demand that you be allowed to vote, and when you're not, you scream that you've been disenfranchised.
Hillary Clinton keeps saying publicly that if there is no revote, Florida and Michigan will vote for McCain. Why would she push the Democrats in those two states to vote for McCain? She doesn't care about people's rights to vote, or their rights to not have this country plunged into unnecessary wars in foreign lands. Hillary Clinton just cares about herself.
Florida and Michigan are not an issue. Split the delegates and seat them all.
While "NabNYC" and I often differ in marginal ways,and have suportted different candidates along the way......it is rare when we FLATLY disagree (and strongly)....This is one of those times.
As a Democrat who finds both Sen. Obama AND Sen. Clinton acceptable as the nominee (though neither was MY first choice)......I have been amazed at the inability of partisans to see the danger in ignoring the vote.
While the reasons Clinton insists on counting the Florida delegates, and Obama insists on NOT counting them are OBVIOUSLYpartisan in nature...there is amuch LARGER more important reason these votes must be counted....and it has NOT to do with Hillary vs. Barack, or pledged delegates vs. Super D's...and certainly not to do with that idiot Dean and his brainless committee.
Two words...ELECTORAL VOTES
I can't COUNT the number of times I've read a comment regarding this impasse when it suddenly dawns on me "this person may not understand the difference between the primary and the general!! (OBVIOUSLY...I am not referring to "NabNYC" here)
If John McCain wins Florida by ONE vote in Nov.....he gets ALL the electoral votes.
Forida is one of the three or four closely divided swing states that WILL DECIDE who the next President will be.
To take a chance on alienating ANY portion of the 1.7 Million who voted in that primary, and driving them into the McCain collumn is SUICIDAL LUNACY for the Democrats....WHOEVER the nominee is. Regards................................................tm
After Obama is declared our nominee, we can then "seat" the delegates as is. In this way we honor the voter's intent, w/o rewarding them for moving their primaries up in contrvention of the party rules. Win-win.
This "solution" doesn't make any sense. If the two states can't pull off a mail-in election because of logistics, what would make one think that the entire nation could??? And the suggestion of an "electronic version" is so naive as to be laughable -- do you have any idea how open to fraud that would be? Anything code-able is crack-able. They can't even secure locally-fixed electronic voting -- how are they going to do it over the 'net? Ridiculous.
Hey, here's a crazy idea -- why not just FOLLOW THE RULES that were decided on before this began? I still haven't heard any explanation why the rules that are in place as they stand -- and AS BOTH CANDIDATES SIGNED OFF ON -- are a problem.
No ‘Solution’ is Necessary
It’s the votes stupid. Following Pennsylvania Hillary will be leading in the popular vote (including Florida). Authorities can take delegates away in Florida, but they cannot take votes away. After the 2000 election is it not clear that the votes are the end all and be all? It is not a delegate race unless someone gets the required number. The rules do not say that the one with the most delegates wins the nomination. The rules say that the one reaching a certain threshold is the winner – if not then there are no rules. { Sounds familiar – no rules – where did this happen? Oh yes, the vote count in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. And what was the lesson from that learned the hard way? Count the votes!! } If there is a question regarding the winner, the rationality of the vote is one of the main issues that the Superdelegates need to consider. The logic of the vote will set us free.
Prediction: Hillary wins PA – leads in the popular vote count, takes the momentum, has won at the polls in the last three contests ( TX, Ohio, PA), starts to lead in polling against McCain and wins most of the big states. ( Obama has the delegate lead only.) Hillary wins the popular vote, gets the Superdelegates and the nomination.
It’s the votes stupid and the votes in Florida where they were both on the ballot count.
As I recall she lost the caucus in TX and took fewer delegates.
The caucus goers will be the backbone of the general election camapign.
NC and Idaho will likely go to Obama....where exectly is her momentum comming from?
Prediction: she will fold after the NC and Idaho votes.
Hebert, something tells me that, in discussing "the popular vote," you are tallying only the votes in the primary-only states, and NOT counting all the caucusers' votes in the caucus states, or the primary votes in Washington, which assigned its delegates based only on caucuses but also had a primary. If you want to make a persuasive argument for the notion of somehow counting "the popular vote" you'll need to include them, and then you will see that, even after a blowout in PA, Obama would still be ahead in the overall number of people who voted for him.
There's only one solution... follow the rules... No one can justify breaking established rules that were clearly told to both states well before they settled on violating dates... Why not have Florida and Michican revolt and vote out all the people in their state that caused this problem> Bye bye charlie crist. Not the DNC. D.
Yes lets follow the rules.
The rules clearly state that there can be a re-vote.
And just so you know as a Michigander the word isn't about voting out the states leaders.
The word is about being irate at the Democratic Party, fair or unfair.
Again though there is within the rules, the ability to have a re-vote.
Sorry to all those sticklers who have only paid attention to the rules that help them.
This party is becoming a mockery of itself, through no fault of their own.
What form does the revote take? Can it be a caucus? A firehouse primary? A mail in vote? Who's going to pay for it?
It's a mess. And a propaganda boon to Hillary Clinton. I'm an Obama supporter, but I"m afraid "rules is rules" isn't going to cut it. I just don't see a fair way out.
I'm a Floridian who voted for Obama, and I say let the results stand for Florida. Won't make much difference. I'm pissed at the DLC of Florida for lying to us. They say they didn't agree with the Repubs in the state, but went to then national DLC, (it's on tape) and told them we were moving it. Shame on them.
As for Michigan. Seat the delegates 50/50. Which is more than fair since only Hillary was on the ticket.
The 50/50 split was brought to the table, and Clinton refused it. The problem with any of the solutions is who do you let vote? If you let Republicans vote, how do you know they are not voting the Rush Limbaugh method, which wouldn't have happened around Super Tuesday because McCain still needed support then. Some people didn't vote at all, because they thought it didn't count, so leaving it as it is disenfranchises them. If you only let Democrats vote, you are leaving out some of the people that would have rolled over their vote sincerely. A mail-in vote has huge potential for fraud and the results might not be trusted. Bottom line is that they could have followed the rules and chose not to. They knew the consequences and chose to take them. i agree that the obvious solution is to vote out the leaders in the state that chose these options.
The solutions have been offered. Obama has blocked.
The only solution now is for Democrats to speak out and insist that he stop playing politics with our core Democrats and allow the states to vote.
Just that simple.
Knock it off, Obama. We know you want to keep that caucus delegate edge of yours. But this is NOT OK.
Compromise......or be known as the candidate of caucuses who blew the election for us.
Stop repeating yourself and avoiding the truth. You sound like the 2000 Republicans saying "the votes have been re-counted" over and over again.
The only solutions provided changed the rules that existed at the start of the campaign. In both cases those rules changes favored Hillary.
It's not up to you and HRC to decide, in the middle of the election, which states run caucuses and which don't. Since she doesn't have the organization in the caucus states, she now wants primaries. In MI, she CLOSED the primary, which would have disenfranchised many. In FL, she went for a mail-in, which would also dis-enfranchise many.
HRC is the one blowing the election by turning the contest it into an expensive bloodfest to the benefit of John McCain
Take off your rose-tinted glasses and get back to reality! The Democratic Party leaders in Michigan and Florida blew it completely and they are the ones to blame. I think this whole problem is hyped up way too much. I believe that the people in Michigan and Florida are smart enough to vote for the best choice in November, regardless of whether some of them participated in a nomination primary at the beginning of the year. By November nobody will care about the blown primaries but about the future of this country. And if they're smart enough they'll vote for whoever will be the Democratic candidate.
You're overlooking one very important point. This race is pretty close, and if you consider MI and FL it icould be a virtual dead heat.
To suppose that voters in Fl and MI who support either candidate will overlook having been left out of the nomination process is naive.
If Obama wins the nomination by a narrow margin then the Clinton Backers in those two states are going to feel that their votes would have made the difference, and vice versa.
The results as they stand are no good because Obama, believing that it didn't matter took his name off of the MI ballot, and neither one campaigned. So those votes are not an accurate reflection of the states.
Something does need to be done though. You can't simply write all those voters off and then expect them to flock to a candidate they had no say in nominating.
Speaking for myself, I would rather vote for the candidate I wanted, and lose fair and square, than to be left out of the process all together.
The people to get mad at are YOUR state representatives. And Hillary Clinton for pumping sunshine up your ass. But the dribble and whining is typical, as it mimics your fearless leader quite well. Consider your self lucky to Vote in November. Kool-aide drinkers as your self (you know who you are in Michigan and Florida) who voted knowing it wouldn't count aren't ignorant as that implies you lacked knowledge. It's the next step down. Don't believe for a minute Hillary didn't know the DNC rules.
Hillary didn't give a rat's ass about Michigan- until she DID (wonder why). We're trying to have an election concerning adults here. (well one any way... can't qualify McCain any better than Hillary). And if I hear one more threat from the pukes on either side they're going to vote for McCain, I got two words for ya- F*CK YOU. You never were a Democrat. If you claim your independent your threat holds no water. My advice for you, if you want to work off that rage you don't know what to do with, how about hitting the pavement and campaign for your candidate. But the truth of the matter is your words carry more weight than your actions. For those that didn't honestly know the votes weren't going to count, please read a newspaper or watch the news every now and again. The rest- piss off.
Hear, Hear...Well said Titon, very well said!
Exactly. Those on each side who pull this I'm voting McCain if I don't get my way, are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Pure Genius. Especially when those are the very same people who have been screaming about the last 8 years.
Those people will have nobody to blame but themselves and their poor judgement.
If a person thinks this is the most important election in decades, and then goes and votes for the party that doesn't represent their interests, well that will be a shame.
I really don't see why it matters. How many states who were post-Super Tuesday states have had any say in the past? Not a lot. There has already been a good sampling of the entire country at this point. I mean can you seriously tell me that Montana is going to vote drastically different from all the states around it? Or that every analyst out there hasn't been cross-referencing similar demographics, types of areas, racial make-up, and a million other things from Ohio to know what's most likely going to happen in Pennsylvania anyway? End of the day, Obama will win. Clinton did well in those 2 states on name recognition alone. If Obama gets to campaign in a state, Clinton doesn't do so well.
People will assess what went wrong over the next couple months. Lawsuits have already been filed to fix things so this can't happen again. Future presidential PRIMARIES, not general elections, but PRIMARIES will be better. Neither candidate moved the dates of those states up and neither did Dean, why people are blaming them for it is beyond me. Expecting the players to rig their own game is crazy too. State problems, need to be fixed at the state level. That isn't happening, Florida and Michigan will survive to vote another day I promise you.
Continued.....
And in Michigan, his name wasn't even ON the ballot. Nuff said.
ANYONE arguing that an outcome from a contest where there is no opposition is a legitimate one is morally bankrupt and deserves to be slapped 3 Stooges style for their absurdity.
As you can plainly see, calling for a revote now amidst protestations about fairness and voter disenfranchisement is just more of the sleazy opportunistic politics we've come to expect from Hillary.
Hillary should really just run as McCain's V.P.
She's already doing a hell of a job as a defacto campaign co-chair...
She'll have to fight Joe Lieberman for the VP spot with McCain. He seems to have the inside track.
Short of time travel, no solution is possible.
There can be no revote NOW because the variables that determine the outcome have changed so substantially since then.
Hillaryites are disingenuously absconding the fact that a significant portion of Barack's base is fair-minded Republicans, Independents and new voters that signed up after hearing Barack's message.
When it was announced that the election wouldn't count, Barack and Hillary both pledged not to campaign in Florida, the following happened:
A) Vast numbers of Democratics who would have voted for Barack Obama stayed home (especially the poor and the young who have better things to do than waste hours standing on line at a polling station to cast a purely symbolic vote).
B) Since Obama didn't campaign, people didn't have a chance to hear his message of change and he lost the opportunity to drive up new voter registrations.
C) Independents and fair minded Republicans who would have voted for Obama (but not for Hillary) either didn't bother changing party affiliation for the primary and stayed home or voted for McCain/Ron Paul.
So in a revote, having already cast their ballots for the other party, they would NOT be able to recast their ballots for Obama now.
D) It's now too late for any young or new voters to register to vote for the first time, so Obama wouldn't be able to reap the vast untapped stores of inspired young people to further expand the party base and his supporters.
well said.
Gee, but Clinton didn't campaign in Florida either and yet she won by a good margin, which I'm guessing you're willing to chalk up to her demonic powers. But, according to you, because independents and republicans who might have voted for Obama have voted for candidates in the republican primary and now cannot vote if there were a re-vote, the process would be unfair. This is nuts. More people came out to vote in the democratic primary in Florida than ever before in the history of Florida primaries ---2 million plus voters!
I will happily vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, but on election night, I may be the only regular commenter at HuffPo who won't be surprised when all those close purple states go red as usual, despite Obama's surprising showing in a few hundred school cafeterias where caucuses took place in the winter. Then everybody will be running around in a panic and will wish they had thought a little more about FL and MI when they were likely to appear in the blue state tallies, and are now up for grabs, or worse, red states too. But f-- 'em, they broke the rules, who needs 'em?
Uh.. Let me help you graps the obvious with both hands - Hillary "won" in Florida because of 3 reasons:
1) She "ran" unopposed as Obama, a relative unknown had never campiagn and nevre had the chance ot make ihs case to the voters of Florida.
2) The Clinton name is a highly recognizable brand name (thanks to Bill). She won on name recognition ALONE.
3) The Clintons have had 16 years to build up a machine of political operatives, affiliates, surrogates and appointees who owe them and who are professionally and financially invested in them and support them. They had been getting the vote out for Hillary from before the primaries, so she effectively had been campaigning there all along.
But I've got more news for you, as historically large as the turnout was in Florida (and much the same story everywhere else around the country) it would have been even staggeringly larger had A) the votes counted and B) Obama campaigned there.
Look. Don't worry. This is over anyway. Obama'll be the nominee and we'll actually see how giddy you'll be to vote for him. :-)
No. We do not have a problem. The Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties have a problem. They were warned in advance that if they moved their primaries up too far, their delegates would not be seated. They moved their primaries anyway in blatant defiance. There's no point in having national leadership if their instructions aren't heeded. If they were truly worried about their constituents' votes being counted, they should have listened in the first place. Howard Dean has faced multiple instances of Dems flat out ignoring him as chairman. He has been accommodating enough trying to discuss a solution. It's not his fault that they can't figure their way out of a problem they brought on themselves.
I can't stand Republicans, but I'll give them credit for one thing: At least they know how to act as a unit and how to follow a goddamned chain of command.
AMEN!
I agree... and believe this -- when the election comes in the Fall, Dems in both Michigan and Florida will vote Democratic. The sting of their ill planned primaries will be like the smell of flowers in the spring -- long gone by Summer. D.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
