Florida Primary Re-Vote Nix Increases Clinton Difficulties

March 18th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

The Democratic party’s monumental mess involving the Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Convention is messier than ever with news that Florida won’t do a primary re-do vote via mail-in ballot — news that will increase difficulties Senator Hillary Clinton faces in overturning delegate-front-runner Senator Barack Obama in an extremely tight race.

It seems nothing is easy for the Democrats this time around: the decision to not do anything (for now at least) on the Florida issue sets the stage for a major credentials battle this summer. And the best man/woman could find embittered supporters of the other side staying home.

The New York Time’s The Caucus blog:

Karen Thurman, head of the Sunshine State’s Democratic party, has issued a letter acknowledging defeat for the idea, much as she knew it was a long-shot possibility last week when she first sent around a draft proposal outlining the ways it could have been accomplished.

The state’s Congressional Democratic delegation opposed it; the Republicans who control the state Legislature opposed it. Opponents cited the inability to verify signatures as one hurdle; the cost estimated at more than $10 million also was a significant obstacle.

But it seemed one way out of the impasse and one that could have benefited Clinton when the final votes were counted. It’d also have provided a way to legitimize a powder-keg situation over the Florida delegation and the primaries.

The Caucus has this exasperated statement from Thurmond — which perhaps is symbolic of the intra-party polarizing Clinton-Obama struggle itself:

Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with D.N.C. Rules – a statewide revote run by the Party – and asked for input.

Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again.

So we won’t.

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th D.N.C. primary deadline.

This doesn’t mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the D.N.C. Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

CBS notes that in this controversy, Clinton was outnumbered:

Members of Florida’s congressional delegation unanimously opposed the plan, and Barack Obama expressed concern about the security of a mail-in vote organized so quickly. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign expressed disappointment with Florida’s decision.

“Today’s announcement brings us no closer to counting the votes of the nearly 1.7 million people who voted in January,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. “We hope the Obama campaign shares our belief that Florida’s voters must be counted and cannot be disenfranchised.”

Obama’s campaign said it looked forward to an agreement on what to do about Florida.

“We hope that all parties can agree on a fair seating of the Florida delegates so that Florida can participate in the Democratic Convention, and we look forward to working with the Florida Democratic Party and competing vigorously in the state so that Barack Obama can put Florida back into the Democratic column in November,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor


Meanwhile, Bill Clinton argues
that Obama in-effect campaigned there:

While toning down the racial remarks dotting the Democratic contest, the man who would be first husband accused Obama of surreptitiously running ads in Florida despite an agreement not to campaign there in response to the Democratic National Committee’s penalty of the state for holding its primary early. The DNC is refusing to seat both Michigan and Florida’s delegates at the national convention in August.

“No one advertised, as that was required, except Senator Obama,” he said. “I think it is very unusual for campaign to buy a national cable buy, they are the least efficient way to do it. … But the point is, he had it. There was big turnout. Hillary won the election by 17 points. And the delegates have been allocated appropriately. … Under the party rules, they could seat the superdelegates and then seat the others and only count them about half a delegate, which would cost her 19 delegates through no fault of her own or their own.”

Clinton also blames Florida Republicans for the Florida delegates debacle:

The 42nd U.S. president also pinned the Democratic presidential nominating mess in Florida on the Republican-led Legislature, suggesting the DNC punished Florida voters for something the GOP did. Clinton said Florida Democrats begged to have their election on Feb. 5 — as per party rules — but were denied by Republicans.

“Florida presents a difficult problem for the Democrats because even though Florida moved out of line, the Democrats are totally blameless. The Republican governor, the Republican Legislature moved the Florida date up,” he said.

As for Michigan, Clinton said he thinks his wife won fair and square there despite hers being the only first-tier Democratic candidate name on the ballot.

“In Michigan, she won, and there was a very determined local effort to get people to vote
against her and for uncommitted. But the other candidates voluntarily took their names off the ballot, I think, trying to help themselves in Iowa and because they knew she was going to win Michigan. … So I don’t know what is going to happen. It is sort of above my pay grade. I have no — I’m not involved in the negotiations between the campaigns,” he said.

It’s clear others — such as the DNC and Obama supporters — are unlikely to agree with Bill Clinton’s version of events.

But there seems to be some consensus in the blogosphere that the net result of this is not helpful to Hillary Clinton:

Megan McArdle:

Meanwhile, there’s a giant hurdle in Michigan, as my colleague Marc Ambinder reports. A lot of Democrats voted in the Republican primary, since Obama wasn’t even on the Democratic ballot. It’s not sure-fire that they would have broken disproportionately for Obama, but that seems like the way to bet.

This seems like a pretty huge blow for Hillary; she’ll have an uphill battle getting those delegates seated. I’d imagine there will be some sort of compromise where the superdelegates get seated, but the regular delegates are shut out.

Ed Morrissey:

Florida doesn’t need to bother with a revote. Unlike Michigan, the ballot had all of the contenders on it when Florida Democrats went to the polls in January. Some claim that the sanction on the primary depressed turnout, but even if it did, it’s impossible to say whether that disadvantaged one candidate over the other. Over 1.6 million Democrats cast votes in the primary, just a little less than the Republicans — certainly enough to legitimize the results, if the DNC desires.

I suspect the DNC will grant Florida half of its delegates, giving Hillary a victory but minimizing its impact. She’ll wind up with a 19-delegate gain rather than a 38-delegate gain.

--Talk Left:

Thurman says the consensus of the thousands of e-mails was that Floridians don’t want to vote again..

Of course they don’t. More than 1.7 million Democrats already voted and they chose Hillary. They want their vote to count. And it should. The DNC is the culprit here. They need to retract the penalty and award and seat the delegates in accordance with the January 29 vote.




This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Florida, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The facts are simple in this case. The facts as I see it with a slight spin on them in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    1. Barak Obama has won a huge majority of his delegates from states that he will not win in November. Idaho. Wyoming. Georgia. Alabama. etc. etc. Yes I know he will win 99 percent of the black vote. The democrat always does but the Republicans still win these states handily.
    2. The latest numbers I have seen is that an estimated 10 to 12 percent of the voters in the democratic primary are republican crossovers. Most trying to insure that Hillary is not the nominee. Some however are in fact voting for Obama Genuinely.
    3. If you remove 10 percent of Obama's delegates and 10 percent of his popular vote you now have a dead heat that favors Hillary Clinton.
    4. Hillary Clinton seems to be the choice of registered democrats. Poll after Poll reveals this.
    5. The fact she cannot win the general election is a talking point that Barak Obama supporters have started to minimize Hillary Clinton and put forth an alternative in Barak Obama.
    6. Hillary and her supporters are going to claim that the nomination was stolen from them from now till eternity if the Florida and Michigan fiasco is not resolved. Much as Al Gore and his supporters believe that Florida was stolen from them and nothing will ever change this fact, so too will Hillary Clinton and her supporters go to their graves believing that the election was stolen from them.
    7. The fact that the Hillary Clinton supporters are going to believe this is what is going to poison the political atmosphere for Barak Obama if he wins the nomination. In 2000 This happened to the Democrats and they have reviled and hated GWB ever since. They have actively embarked upon a hate mission to bring GWB down and they have for the most part succeeded. I believe that by stealing(perception is everything)this election from Hillary that her minions will embark upon the same type of hate mongering that the left/antirepublicans embarked upon in 2000 and with a huge sense of outrage at the swiftboating loss in 2004. Essentially doing to the Democratic party what they did to the Republican party. Put them into total disarray and confusion as to where they were going and who was going to lead.
    • ^
    • v
    To follow up so that you do not think I dislike Barak Obama.

    I believe that Obama has run an effective campaign. Played by the rules and out finiggled Hillary Clinton. However the facts speak for themselves. If you look at the board of states he has won. He has won states and delegates from states that WILL NOT vote for him in November.

    With the loss of Florida and Michigan both of which would have gone heavily for Clinton had they both actively campaigned there because of the make up of voters it is evident that Barak Obama has drawn his strength from muscling Hillary who made a huge mistake in believing the campaign would be over on super tuesday.

    To Barak Obamas credit. His campaign has been pure genius driven by passionate people who truly want change for the better. Yet. Facts remain facts. With the Florida and Michigan fiasco in play the Clinton supporters are going to be outraged at losing the nomination with the sincere belief that it was STOLEN from them. This will be the downfall of the Democrats in Novemeber.
    • ^
    • v
    Whocares, "Facts remain facts. With the Florida and Michigan fiasco in play the Clinton supporters are going to be outraged at losing the nomination with the sincere belief that it was STOLEN from them."

    I don't think Hill was against the DNC rules (and she has a lot of superdelegates on the committee) taking away the FL and MI delegates.

    Just like the fiasco in NV, as you might recall. It was announced that caucuses could be held in casinos, and no campaign expressed concern. Yet when the Service Employees International Union (many of whom work in casinos) supported Obama, suddenly and at the last minute Hillary's supporters sued to have the casino caucuses banned. Funny how Hillary doesn't have a problem with the rules, even when she can influence the outcome, but once those rules are set and something happens against her, she cries foul. This is very different than the Bush/Gore debacle where there was a legitimate concern over the FL vote.

    Hillary and her supported may feel that the election was taken from them if Hill doesn't get the nomination, but even with the FL and MI delegates, i think Hillary would still be behind O in delegates (excluding superdelegates). Not too far behind, but still behind....

    If she hadn't agreed to the rules AND had legitimate reasons for disagreeing with those rules when she had a chance to speak up, that would be a different story.
 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.