Posted on 03/14/2008 7:09:09 AM PDT by jdm
I don’t get it. Like Karl says, neither one of them has a rational interest in compromising; I’d go a step further and say neither one of them (but especially Obama) has an interest in holding new elections. Hillary has more of an interest, of course, since she’ll likely win and pick up delegates, but as we’ve discussed, the pick-up will be marginal and Obama’s likely to do better in the popular vote this time around now that he’s the frontrunner. The popular vote is what she cares about since it buttresses her moral case for the nomination before the superdelegates, so why give him a chance to cut into that with a re-vote (especially when the re-vote polls are grim)? Better to sit on what she’s got and go whine to the credentials committee at the convention about disenfranchisement to see if they can’t be muscled into validating the results.
And what’s Obama’s logic? The last thing he wants to do is lose two more big battleground states fair and square, even if he makes it close and claims a pyrrhic victory in having reduced her margins of victory. Granted, that would be preferable to having the credentials committee validate her earlier wins, but why not take his chances in trying to muscle them the other way? Even if they side with her, at least he’s preserved his objection that the process was illegitimate, which may weigh on superdelegates who are afraid of Hillary being nominated and jeered as “selected, not elected.” If he agrees to the re-vote and loses, even narrowly, he waives that objection.
What am I missing here?
Rational thought is not liberals/democrats strong point.
The reason you pretend to be interested in a re-vote, is the voters of those two states,who feel disenfranchised, will not hold a grudge against you in the General election. - tom
The point your missing is that the credentials committee is composed of delegates selected by each candidate. The number of delegates each is allocated is based upon their share of elected delegates. Since Obama will have a working majority on the credentials committee he won’t have to ‘muscle’ it. He already owns it.
Neither of them can be seen as opposing re-votes, because if they do happen in either state, the candidate who tried to prevent them will be seen as trying to disenfranchise the voters of that state, which will not sit well with the voters.
Frankly, I think Obama should make the case that MI an FL were penalized as part of the DNC plan to grease the skids for Mrs. Clinton, and so she is responsible for this mess.
What I would like to know is what about the Dems that decided to vote republican in the primary??? Do they get to vote again????
Yeah, probably. It depends on what the rules wind up being.
I would bet you dollars to donuts the SCOFLA will require the State of Florida to run a conventional primary and pick up the cost, probably on June 10. This would be a complete do-over, with all records of the previous election conveniently ignored.
----
LOL seeing that word associated with a Clinton. But then "moral" to them means "rightful", as in the right of royalty.
“...Granted, that would be preferable to having the credentials committee validate her earlier wins...”
He answered his own question. Clinatnoids comletely control the credentials committe of the convention and the Hillary supporting delegates from MI and FL would be seated if re-do’s don’t happen. Obama knowa that. That also explains why everyone else but Hillary managed to follow DNC rules and stay off of the ballotsin rule-breaking states. Obama has little to lose. Hillary may feel she needs late truly legal wins in those state amd not just unfairly gotten delegates form them. This is because the extra delegates still won’t work as well as the effects of late big state wins over a slate that actually has Obama’s name on it (for convincing enough supers to support her).
I don’t think it’s a liberal thing with her. It the spectacular lust for power on such bright display.
A bigger issue in my mind is if the DNC allows the revote then they validated the early voting and admittedly disenfranchised voters who may have voted for Edwards and other candidates who would have been in the race that early.
I think at the DNC’s expense they should 1) pay for the revote, 2) give Edwards and every candidate who was in the race at the time matching funds of whatever the leading candidate chooses to spend.
To sum up:
The DNC is stuck. If they don’t concoct some ad-hoc method of seating delegates of some kind, they’ll alienate voters in Florida and Michigan (and didn’t New Hampshire risk the same fate?); if they do concoct one, and it frogs the result to steal the nomination from Barack Obama — who doesn’t really have it sown up in the first place — they’ll lose support among black voters, which prior to this and for generations has been nearly rubber-stamp in nature; and if they hand the nomination to Obama with or without seating some kind of delegation from MI and FL, it will alienate non-black voters of all colors, ethnic origins, sexual preferences, and creeds (that last one is a small group, mostly pro-terrorist, anti-US Moslems, who already support Obama), undermine various agendas, and fracture the entertainment industry.
Oh, best part — Soros supports the dismemberment of Yugoslavia; that’s a longtime Clinton goal as well; and Obama will without qualification support the Moslems in the former Yugoslavia. That will split the Europeans along some lines best left to the imagination, and maybe destroy NATO, the EU, and bring about civil war throughout Europe.
Michigan to re-do Democratic primary?
Hot Air | March 14, 2008 | by Ed Morrissey
Posted on 03/14/2008 9:53:18 AM EDT by jdm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985601/posts
Clinton, of course, thinks she would pick up delegates which is likely...and which would plant doubts about Obama in the minds of super-delegates.
It is a fine mess the Democrats have gotten themselves into and I am enjoying it immensely.
The nomination for Barack McGovern Obama is a lock. Soon it won’t make any difference either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.