Michigan and Florida might hold Caucuses!

[Flying Dog]

Yesterday on MSNBC, Chris Matthews tried to get Howard Dean to say whether the Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated. As you'd expect, Dean punted, instead leaving it at "it will be decided by the credentials committee late in the process" and stressing that he does not want this to go all the way to the convention.

Marc Ambinder today elaborates on the credentials committee process.

    The DNC's credentials committee meets this summer, probably in July, and it is not clear which candidate's representatives will be in control: the committee's seats are allocated through a formula linked to the candidate's performances in the states. If the committee winds up being controlled by Hillary Clinton - if, that is, she has a delegate lead in July, the Florida and Michigan delegations will be credentialed.

    But if Barack Obama controls the credentials committee, and his committee is given the opportunity to deny Hillary Clinton delegates from Michigan and Florida that could put her over the top - that's his prerogative.

Well, July would be no better for Dean -- he wants the nominee chosen by April, May at the latest, and it looks like to make sure that happens, especially after last night's results, an alternate Michigan and Florida scenario is being considered.

    The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they've lost for holding January primaries can be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said today.

    DNC member Debbie Dingell said it's unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they've already held primaries, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29.

    But she said the DNC is asking the two states to consider such a plan as the likelihood grows that the selection of the party's nominee could come down to the national convention.

This is, of course, on paper, a nightmare for Clinton, since Obama does so much better at caucuses generally, although Nevada did prove that if she competes she can win a caucus in a state where the demographics favor her. And it doesn't hurt that a vast number of voters in FL & MI have already cast ballots for her. But overall, I gotta think this scenario would favor Obama and will be fought tooth and nail by the Clinton campaign. This is just getting weirder and weirder.

[Flying Dog]

The DNC better pay for this because MI can't afford another election.

[exopolitician]

Just leave them delegateless like they already promised they would by punishing the two states.

[Lief 🗽]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

[MasterJedi]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

But of course they don't care about disenfranchising the voters in those states. They could have at least done what the Republicans did, cut the delegates in half.

[Bacon King]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

But of course they don't care about disenfranchising the voters in those states. They could have at least done what the Republicans did, cut the delegates in half.

The only people disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida are their respective state governments, who knowingly and intentionally moved the primaries ahead of the DNC Feb 5th cutoff date, all in a futile attempt to call Dean's bluff.

[CultureKing]

The DNC better pay for this because MI can't afford another election.

Caucuses are paid for by the parties of the respective state, I don't think the state government really has anything to do with it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DNC better pay for this because MI can't afford another election.

The DNC shouldn't subsidize rule-breakers. If the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties want delegates at the convention, they'd better suck it up and pay for them themselves.

[MasterJedi]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

But of course they don't care about disenfranchising the voters in those states. They could have at least done what the Republicans did, cut the delegates in half.

The only people who disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida are their respective state governments, who knowingly and intentionally moved the primaries ahead of the DNC Feb 5th cutoff date, in a futile attempt to call Dean's bluff.

Which still disenfranchised the voters because of the elected officials. Like I said, at least cut the delegates in half, that means they get punished but the voters still get a say.

[Meeker]

If Michigan and Florida had followed the rules and held off going until sometime in February or March, they would be absolutely critical. It makes me laugh, especially Michigan, at how stupid they were.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

But of course they don't care about disenfranchising the voters in those states. They could have at least done what the Republicans did, cut the delegates in half.

The only people who disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida are their respective state governments, who knowingly and intentionally moved the primaries ahead of the DNC Feb 5th cutoff date, in a futile attempt to call Dean's bluff.

Which still disenfranchised the voters because of the elected officials. Like I said, at least cut the delegates in half, that means they get punished but the voters still get a say.

Fine, if they lose all their superdelegates, too.

[Mr. Morden]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules, and they got punished. The Democratic party, after complaining (justly and correctly) about the Bush administration ignoring the rules and the law again and again should not be hypocrites.

But of course they don't care about disenfranchising the voters in those states. They could have at least done what the Republicans did, cut the delegates in half.

The only people who disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida are their respective state governments, who knowingly and intentionally moved the primaries ahead of the DNC Feb 5th cutoff date, in a futile attempt to call Dean's bluff.

Which still disenfranchised the voters because of the elected officials. Like I said, at least cut the delegates in half, that means they get punished but the voters still get a say.

Cutting the delegations in half isn't going to deter the states from moving up, as the states whose delegations were cut in half (NH, MI, SC, FL) on the GOP side clearly still had a lot of influence and got a lot of attention from the candidates.  If both parties only cut pre-Feb. 5 primary states' delegations in half, then you would have had something like a dozen states moving up to early/mid-January, and IA and NH would have voted in November or December.

[Lief 🗽]

If Michigan and Florida had followed the rules and held off going until sometime in February or March, they would be absolutely critical. It makes me laugh, especially Michigan, at how stupid they were.

What's hilarious is that if Michigan and Florida had just moved to Feb 5th or even Feb 26th or March 4th, they would have been two of the most important states in the entire process.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Michigan and Florida had followed the rules and held off going until sometime in February or March, they would be absolutely critical. It makes me laugh, especially Michigan, at how stupid they were.

What's hilarious is that if Michigan and Florida had just moved to Feb 5th or even Feb 26th or March 4th, they would have been two of the most important states in the entire process.

Yeah, well, they thought things would be over by Super Tuesday, and wanted to have unfair influence on the process. Not a lot of sympathy from me there.

Think about this. How important is to be the state that votes first? Would some state be willing to give up over 100% of their delegates (it actually hurts the winner)? I think the answer is yes, it's all about momentum.

[Gabu]

Which still disenfranchised the voters because of the elected officials. Like I said, at least cut the delegates in half, that means they get punished but the voters still get a say.

The whole point of making the voters not have a say is to punish the states for breaking the rules.  Letting them keep half of the delegates is hardly any punishment at all, as they'd have still gotten all of the media attention they were desiring.

[Likely Voter]

the irony now is that late states like TX and OH are going to end up choosing the nominee

[ukchris82]

Would views be the same is Obama won Florida and Michigan?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Which still disenfranchised the voters because of the elected officials. Like I said, at least cut the delegates in half, that means they get punished but the voters still get a say.

The whole point of making the voters not have a say is to punish the states for breaking the rules.  Letting them keep half of the delegates is hardly any punishment at all, as they'd have still gotten all of the media attention they were desiring.

By punishing the states you just punish the electorate. This situation is absurd and indefensible. But those two words also go for the entire primary racket so...

[minionofmidas]

the irony now is that late states like TX and OH are going to end up choosing the nominee

Irony?

[Inmate Trump]

I think it'll only hurt the Democrats in November if they do nothing about the delegate situation in these two states.  Holding another primary or caucus isn't the answer either; they've already voted.  Holding another primary/caucus could change the result of the previous primaries due to candidate momentum, fundraising, ads, etc. which wouldn't be at all fair.

The DNC dug themselves this hole, now they have to get out of it.  Way to go, Dean.

[7,052,770]

The people of those states didn't decide when to have it, and they shouldn't be punished.

Seat the delegates, or at the very least do another caucus for them.

[Mr. Morden]

What about the people of FL and MI who didn't bother to vote in the earlier primaries because they knew it wouldn't count?  (After all, the FL turnout on the Dem side was lower than on the GOP side, something that pretty much hasn't happened anywhere else this year....if people knew it counted, I'm sure more would have shown up.)  Aren't you "disenfranchising" them as well by counting the existing results?  It seems to me the only way of "enfranchising" everyone is to hold a new election.

[John Dibble]

I would say that holding a new primary/caucus is probably the fairest way to deal with the situation given that the punishment resulted in names being pulled from ballots and no campaigning in those states. Still, I don't think there's an ideal solution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Weren't both Michigan and Florida primaries originally?

[Flying Dog]

Weren't both Michigan and Florida primaries originally?

Yeah. The state can't afford another primary though.