A revote in Florida would have higher turnout than the original vote.

So there's the possibility that Clinton would gain in the popular vote, which is her new metric for determining the nomination (this week).

Also - there's the late momentum factor. If I were Obama, I'd jockey to have Michigan before Florida. He doesn't need a blowout right before the superdelegates decide.

You might be right. He might be better off accepting the results from last January...but that validate Hillary Clinton's childish stunt, so I don't think it's wise.

he's got to support a re-vote.  And so does she.

Being seen to disenfranchise Florida, of all states after 2000's follies, is politically untenable.

And you can't leave Michigan out of a game where the vote is so close.  

In neither case can the Democratic Party be seen to punish the voters because of the sins of the state Party leaders in breaking the Dem rules.  

Such arcane arguments don't hold up against an easy to understand one:  all votes must be counted.

Of course it's Florida Democrats' fault. If they didn't want to go along with the Republican scheme to cheat and make their votes count for "momentum" rather than delegates, Florida Democrats could have taken any number of actions. For example, they could have scheduled a caucus during the permitted time. They could have funded their own primary election during the permitted time. They could have held a mail-in ballot during the permitted time. And so forth.

Florida Democrats knew what the consequences would be, and like all rule-breakers, they gambled that the benefits of cheating (affecting early momentum) outweighed the consequences (electing no delegates).

However, of course Obama is going to seat Florida. Michigan too. Once it's clear that these delegates won't overturn the votes of the 48 states that didn't cheat, of course their delegates will be seated as-is. I don't understand what all the panic is about. Doesn't everyone know that this is how it will turn out?

Obama should wait until the convention, when it will be clear he has won, then graciously seat the FL delegation.  

Obama should support a re-vote in both states.  It won't happen because Hillary is opposed to a re-vote.  She is bidding to seat both delegations based on the phony results.  But, absolutely, Obama should support a re-vote and let Hillary take the hit or let the inability to finance the re-vote take the hit.  

If the national party seats these delegations, they can give up having any control in the future over the state parties.  They will having the 2012 primaries in the summer of 11.

If Obama agrees to the original vote, Clinton surrogates will be out there complaining that Obama is afraid of a real vote because of the late momentum factor.  If he agrees to a new vote, they's complain about the logistics and "revoting" and so on.  There is no winning this redo of "reject and denounce" business ...

On the whole, it seems to me that he should take the delegate hit and appear magnanimous in doing so: "We had agreed not to campaign, not to allow the names to appear on the ballot, and no to seat the delegates.  Indeed, many voters in Florida did not participate in the primay because they, too, wanted to abide by the rules.  My opponent now insists otherwise.  To have a revote would be too costly; to fight my opponent risks splitting the party.  Although I think the process was flawed, I concede the point, and hope that now my opponent will stop moving the goalposts and will instead concentrate on America's business."  ...

I want to reemphasize what Rhubarbs wrote - the Florida Democratic Party was a willing participant in moving their primary up. How to punish the party nitwits without punishing the voters is an open matter, however.

I think agreeing to seat FL would be a brilliant move, because 1) he still will win even with this configuration; 2) he takes the higher moral ground. But he definitely shouldn't agree to MI because he wasn't on the ballot. Then the ball will be the Clinton's court, whether they want to push for a revote, and ultimately the DNC, which I think should stick to its guns and NOT SEAT either FL or MI because they acted with full awareness of the consequences. And I am a MI voter who voted uncommitted. I don't think our delegates should be seated unless they are divided 50/50. I think MI is going nowhere, the state is a disaster, no one will agree on what to do and the clock is ticking.

Consider me one of the Florida voters who didn't bother to vote in the "meaningless" primary last January who would jump to vote in a revote.

VC has a good point... the higher voter turnout would likely lead to a larger popular vote margin for Clinton, and an overall popular vote win and late momentum is really her only legitimate path to the nomination.

I like Josh's suggestion, if the FL/MI question ends up having to be decided before the convention.  Seat the FL delegates based on January's result (at least Obama was on the ballot), and do a caucus re-vote in MI.  I think Obama will need a little more leverage to wrangle that out of Clinton, though.  God, this whole nomination really has been ridiculous.

benjamin81, that's an interesting question. Perhaps noncompliant states should have their elected delegations reduced by some factor, but lose all of their superdelegates. The DNC could still impose such a rule retroactively. Say, follow the Republican lead and cut the total delegations in half and strike FL and MI's superdelegates from the lists.

A re-vote would be bad for Obama because of the Blue Dog factor, but Obama should face into it. To secure his legitimacy he needs to show he's not afraid of America's dark side (really it's white side). Hillary will likely win Florida. Sometimes democracy doesn't work.

Obama should fight to the end. If he gets the nomination, great. If not, he can go back to doing great things in other ways. Let Hillary face the GOP on her own. McCain will win. The economy and Iraq will make him a one-term president. Obama's young. He can try again.

icarusr

It is simply too risky for Obama to seat Florida because the extent of his margin is what will weigh on the super-delegates.  Once the point is conceded, the illegitimacy of the Florida vote will be forgotten.  It also reduces the margin of super-Delegates that she needs.  The PR simply isn't worth it.  He has a perfectly good line, that he adopted at the beginning, which is that the vote held cannot be permitted to count but that he would be happy to see a re-vote within the rules.  Hillary will never permit it because a re-vote in Michigan could easily be a loss for her and a re-vote in Florida would be a lot closer and further undermine her pitch to the super-delegates.

There is nothing whatever for Obama to gain, other than 10 secs of positive PR.  As you say, Hillary will spin it that he is afraid of a re-vote.  He should just stick to the line that there should be a re-vote so that the vote can be legitimate and count.

Punish the state party by requiring the current members of the state central committee resign right after the general election and let FL Democrats decide who to keep or replace. Also, seat the pledged delegates, but not the FL superdelegates. Kinda difficult for Clinton that would be antidemocratic. And it'd hit the party regulars rather than the rank and file voters.

MI is simpler - make the state party pay for a revote, or their delegation doesn't get seated, and strip them of their superdelegates. Put Carl Levin and Jennifer Granholm in dunking tanks outside the convention as a nice little extra.

Revote, but VC is right -- Clinton's path to the nomination relies on the popular vote.  Where VC and I would disagree is that I don't see anything wrong with that.  Now in the past Clinton has tried to push for MI/FL to be seated as-is (and I imagine she'd then count there popular votes too), which nobody should stand for.  Re-vote!

Indeed, if a re-vote means that Hillary gains so much that she can win the nomination, so be it.  Just so she doesn't get to steal it.

What exactly would y'all say to Obama if he agreed to seat Florida and then loses the nomination by 20 votes?  Oops?

Rhubarbs,

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that they were trying to trade delegates for momentum on the Democratic side.  That would be accurate for the Republicans where they still had the biggest chunk of delegates of the early-voting states. How on earth were the Florida and Michigan Dems supposed to influence the momentum with a meaningless primary where nobody campaigned?  Was anybody outside of the Clinton campaign impressed that she won Florida or that she beat uncommitted in Michigan?

Regardless of the motivations, there's still the problem that the people getting hurt by this (Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan) are not the ones that made the decision.  Completely disenfranchising voters for a decision beyond their control is not a good solution here.

Damn my slow posting.

"Perhaps noncompliant states should have their elected delegations reduced by some factor, but lose all of their superdelegates. The DNC could still impose such a rule retroactively. Say, follow the Republican lead and cut the total delegations in half and strike FL and MI's superdelegates from the lists."

I actually like this solution, but applying it retroactively is a problem because people weren't actively trying to win those states.  You can bet that if FL and MI had lost half of their delegates instead of all of them, all three campaigns (remember Edwards was still in it) would have been campaigning pretty hard there, and I doubt anyone would take their name off the ballot.  I still think you need a revote of some sort.

Going forward, it's an interesting idea, but it runs into some problems in that the small states have fairly little to lose by moving their primaries earlier (e.g. NH lost half it's delegates on the Republican side, but that's not really why anyone was competing there).

How about the campaigns agreeing to seat Florida as is and a caucus in Michigan?  That seems like splitting the baby and might not pass with voters but would seem reasonably fair to the candidates.  Plus, it avoids the expense of a re-run in Florida, including the cost of campaigning.  

AlanSP.

I beg to differ.  The people getting hurt by this are not the voters of Florida and Michigan, but the Democratic voters in the entire rest of the country who are having the results of their legitimate voting threatened by the addition of corrupted outcomes in Florida and Michigan.  

Also, AlanSP makes the mistake of assuming that just because the FL and MI gamble of trading delegates for early influence didn't work, therefore that wasn't what they were trying to do. Yes it was. To the great benefit of the 48 non-cheating states, these two states' nefarious gamble didn't pay off. Too bad on them.

Which is why the fair outcome here is for Michigan and Florida's delegates to be seated -- but only after it will not be possible for them to overturn the outcome as decided by the other 48 states (and DC and the territories). If their delegates would affect the outcome, then seating them, whether as things stand or after a second vote (and hey, why don't I get to vote twice?), then their delegations must not be seated, because that would reward their cheating by giving them exactly the influence they cheated to gain.

As to FL and MI Dems being innocent victims of the machinations of their party masters, come on. When I have a problem with something my local or state party does, I raise hell about it. I show up at my monthly district party meeting and raise the issue. I call my county chairman and bitch about it. I write my Democratic elected officials. Michigan and Florida Dems who didn't raise holy hell within their state parties either just didn't care or they actively approved of cheating their way to possible early influence, and in either event tough on them.

This is getting to be like a baseball player all doped up on steroids complaining that the pitcher struck him out anyway and asking for a do-over. Give me a break!

Give Florida and Michigan the RNC treatment, split the delegations in half and let the vote stand. This can certainly hold in Florida. Perhaps if Obama is awarded the noncommited votes in Michigan that can work as well. This has the benefit of putting real sanctions on early states, without disenfranchising them. If it worked fine for the RNC why can't it work for the DNC?

Rhubarbs,

Would you just write my posts for me?  You do it better than I do, and it would save me a lot of time.

blackton,

I'd like to think that would be the best answer, but the reality is that FL and MI are two completely different scenarios. I agree that halving FL's delegation may be the quickest and easiest (does that mean best?) solution, and would certainly be a punishment. But giving the fact that, alone amongst the major Dem candidates, Clinton's name was on the MI ballot makes that state a different situation altogether. I agree with some others above the best thing would be for FL to be halved and Michigan to re-vote or caucus, or whatever.

One other thing that kind of bothers me, why such concern about "pissing off" the Florida voters.  I hate to break this to the Democrats, but Florida isn't a swing state anymore. Or, its a swing state only if the Florida Republican Party does something monumentally stupid, like emulates Ohio's Republicans. I think Pennsylvania is similar for the Dems, won't lose it unless the local party does something disastrously stupid.

Thank you, mundye, for reminding us that all this handwringing over FL is just that, handwringing.

Rhubarb's right. No re-votes. Period.

What's all this talk about anti-Clinton media bias, anyway? I can't believe anyone's even humoring Clinton's argument that FL's delegates should be seated, to say nothing of Michigan.  

Are people's memories really that short?  I thought it was decided long ago that FL/MI would not allowed to decide the nomination.

No re-votes. No seating until the nomination is decided.  Obama can graciously call for them to be seated once Clinton is formally dispatched.

mundye, yeah I agree about Michigan too, but doing it this way undercuts Hillary's argument completely, and doesn't really do too much harm to Obama delegate wise, and if Hillary starts to talk up the popular vote, he can dismiss the two states outcome since he never campaigned in either and as such it was as much a name recognition beauty contest as anything else.

Rhubarbs, your solution may be the technically fair and just one.  But, it's too complicated to 'splain in the middle of a hotly contested campaign with a few votes separating the candidates.

This isn't a process problem.  It's a political one.  It IS too going to matter if the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida are disaffected from the party.  The party is going to need every vote it can get in November in states that both narrowly went to the GOP in the last presidential election.

Add to that, it's unfair to penalize the Democratic electorate at large for the sins of the political leaders.  It may be technically right under the rules.  But, this ain't a court of law.

But, you know what.  It's not my party.  If the Democrats want to cut off some of their limbs and antagonize their own voters in two major states that could swing their way, then please do it.

Look, the only argument against seating Florida or Michigan (or any other lawless failed state) is that them moving themselves up is an attack on the holy principle that Iowa and New Hampshire go first.  There are a lot of brave Patriots fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I doubt you could find a single one of them that will tell you the reason they're there is to ensure that Iowa and New Hampshire get the first crack at the nomination frenzy.

I agree that there is good reason to question just how valid the result was in either state, but just kicking them out is simply stupid.  If I lived in Michigan or Florida and the headline was "Dean and Obama to Florida and Michigan: Drop Dead", I can't say that would energize me to go out and work for the Democrats in the General Election.

And if you punt Michigan AND Florida over to the Republican column, how exactly do you think you are going to win the Electoral College?

A revote is the only way to go.  And please not another corrupt caucus.  I don't begrudge Obama his delegates that he won in the caucuses up to now, because those were the agreed-upon rules ahead of time and it's not like he was in any position to dictate those rules.  But one thing this election season has shown is that the whole caucus idea is totally illegitimate and should be made illegal.  

Kicking FL and MI out may or may not have been the best thing for the DNC to do to protect its rules, but that is now completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you cannot count the corrupted votes of FL and MI  with the uncorrupted votes of all the other states.  It is not so much that it is unfair to Obama supporters in MI to include the MI vote.  It is unfair to all of the Obama supporters across the country.  If either of these elections had been held in a foreign country, with either one name on the ballot or an election that was announced not to count and then, after the fact was held to be conclusory, we would consider that a mockery of a real democracy.  And it would be.

There are only two alternatives:  FL and MI can decide to hold new primaries or caucuses (it is not up to the DNC or the candidates to decide which any more than it was up to the DNC or the candidates to decide for the other states) or they have no delegations to seat.  Both candidates would be wise to agree to the seating of any delegation that is the outcome of a new, timely caucus or primary, but it really does not matter.  The DNC should make clear that it certainly will seat such a delegation whether the candidates like it or not.  Then it is up to FL and MI to find the resources to hold their caucuses or votes.  If they cannot, that is too bad.  If the DNC or the candidates want to kick in the cost, that is their right, but I wouldn't.

buffaloboy, and why can't we do exactly the same thing the Republicans did, halve the delegates and seat them. The punishment sticks, it is hard to say how that disenfranchises anyone disproportionately since Republicans and Democrats both with have been punished equally, so how can any voters hold a grudge against either party? Hillary might bitch and complain, but did McCain or any Republicans?

The DNC should have done what the RNC did, but no reason why they can't do it now. Who is going to pay for a revote?

"Also, AlanSP makes the mistake of assuming that just because the FL and MI gamble of trading delegates for early influence didn't work, therefore that wasn't what they were trying to do. Yes it was"

I don't get the logic here.  If they knew the consequences, there's no way they could expect to create momentum with a primary where there were no delegates at stake and nobody campaigning.  How exactly was this gamble supposed to work?

"Michigan and Florida Dems who didn't raise holy hell within their state parties either just didn't care or they actively approved of cheating their way to possible early influence, and in either event tough on them."

What about the ones who did?  Their votes don't count either.  I think you're making unreasonable demands of the voters here.  Say I'm a rule-abiding Pennsylvanian (which I am).  If I want my vote to count, I have to show up on April 22 and vote.  Simple as that.  Now say that I'm a Floridian who wants to abide by the DNC rules (assume this is all before their primary).  If I want my vote to count, I have to raise hell with my local/state party, actually convince them to do something about it, and hope that they can either override the Republicans (and Dems who support the move) in the legislature, or somehow fund and alternative primary.  Do you have that kind of influence with your state party? I sure as hell don't.

Chan,

Thanks for the advice on behalf of all Demcrats.  Personally, I am not the slightest bit concerned that any otherwise Democratic voters in Michigan or Florida are going to desert the party because of this business.  Everyone has to say how concerned they are so that those voters don't feel dissed, but as long as there is a lot of handwringing over it, the outcomes in FL and MI in the general will be the same,  

This is a non-issue.

What is peculiar is the spin that Obama is the one resisting revotes when, all along, it has been Hillary resisting revotes.

blackton,

One obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat situations is that the race really is over on the Republican side.  McCain has the majority he needs regardless of who or what is seated or not seated from Florida or Michigan.  Plus McCain carried Florida, so it's really hard to argue that McCain is getting screwed by the party.  So in that race, the question is moot.

It's not moot on the Democrats side.  Every single delegate matters in this race.  Florida Democrats, of all people, are going to be ighly sensitive to the idea that every 8 years their votes don't count.  Plus both states went for Clinton, the person who is behind at the moment, so she really needs the votes.  Disqualifying them on a fairly cheesy technicality isn't going to win you any admirers among the people that foolishly trudged to the polls in a pathetic attempt to participate in a political process that they have no right to be in.

Democrats have a long history of encouraging both women and blacks to think that they are the victims of all kinds of nefarious activities.  (And the fact that they frequently ARE the victims of nefarious activities only helps people to keep the anger going).  I don't see how a party that is constantly making noise about how "inclusive" it is can tell two entire states to get lost.

Cheesy technicality?  It would have been both cheesy and a technicality if, after the elections were held, THEN the DNC had announced that the delegations would not be seated.  But you cannot hold an election that "doesn't count" and then declare that it does after the fact.  That is as or more cheesy and technical than disallowing due to a violation of rules an election after it has been held .

A lot of people went to the polls.  A lot of people stayed home because there was no "election" in the proper sense being held.  Among those who stayed home were the candidates.

I continue to maintain that this is a non-issue.  So long as the candidates and the DNC are clear that both states retain the right to hold caucuses or primaries prior to the convention, it is up to the states and the state committees to decide to hold bona fide elections or caucuses or not.  All the noise about disenfranchising the voters is just that, noise.  It will not change the outcome in November.

From the Times article:

Hasen, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on election law and administration.

“From the viewpoint of legitimacy of elections, this is a mess,” said Mr. Hasen, who is politically neutral. “Yes, we had a contest, but it was a contest run under unusual rules. Candidates were not allowed to campaign and voters were told by the D.N.C. their votes wouldn’t count. That kind of election doesn’t comport with our usual democratic norms.”

He added, “We’re facing a really politically unpalatable situation in which two states that are potentially important to a Democratic victory in November are being told they don’t count. And it’s all the fault of legislators and party leaders who pushed these early elections.”

That's the point.  These "elections" that Hillary now calls fair, after agreeing that they would not count, were not conducted according to Democratic norms.  If the states can come up with a plan, they can have a re-vote or a caucus.  So far, neither state has been able to do so.  That is not the responsibility of the candidates or the DNC.  Hillary wants a re-vote after all the other primaries.  Obama wants an "equitable" solution.  She is gaming the system.  He'd wisely trying to stay out of telling the states what to do.

bufalo, you never answered the question. My point is that no Republicans complained about the half delegate situation before the vote, and none did afterwards, even McCain didn't have it locked up at that point and he could have used all the delegates but he kept quiet about it because he accepted the rules before and after the fact. The Republican solution worked fine, to be against it now because it is not to Hillary's utmost advantage is beside the point. It wasn't for McCain either. And you know full well Hillary can't win by pledged delegates, 17 delegates won't even get her all that close but will put this all behind us. She can still prattle on about her popular vote win to her pitch to the superdelegates. I will tell you what, there is no way in hell those full delegations will be seated unless there is a revote, or the half delegate Republican solution. Either will be fine with me, just that the Republican solution can be done tomorrow, who the hell knows how the revote will happen.

blackton:

Oh, I agree completely that a revote is the only way to go.  Most of what I'm seeing recently suggests that it is Obama that doesn't want a revote, not Clinton.  Sure, Clinton is leading with "just seat them now" (wouldn't you)?  But if either Florida or Michigan (and hopefully both) come out with a credible revote plan, I don't see how she can refuse to go along.

I also have no doubt that if Obama had carried either state's beauty contest, and was behind at the moment,  there would be A LOT of people on this board saying that the only reasonable explanation for not seating them would be racism.

Re-vote or to hell with 'em. It wasn't just the DNC that made the rules, the state parties agreed to abide by them. If they can't come up with the funds or time runs out, it's not that they didn't have the opportunity or the time (or for that matter, the $$). If the DNC graciously offers a solution which would not be to everybody's liking but also would not arbitrarily reward or deny either campaign. If FL and MI continue to piss and moan, and Hillary won't cut the crap, then a fair (and arbitrary) solution should be found for all the states to "revote." Scotch all the rules and hold a national primary in July.

no buffalobob,

Hillary says seat them as is or re-vote.  Obama says don't seat them or re-vote.  Hillary wants to dictate the terms of the re-vote so that they are too her liking, e.g., no caucuses.  Obama has not presumed to dictate terms to the states, only to say that it should be fair and equitable.  It is Hillary, not Obama, who has been resisting re-voting.  Gee, I wonder why.  Hillary even says that she won fairly in Michigan, that her opponent, was "undecided" and, as she says, "I still got 55% of the vote" as if it were to here disadvantage not to have any opponents.  Boy is this woman full of crap.

I feel pretty certain that no delegations will be seated based on the January results.  Whether the FL and MI can agree on plans that Hillary won't block -- while continuing to insist that the Jan results should hold -- is anyone's guess.

By the way, the AP reports that not only is Ferraro gone but Hillary is engaging in non-stop, abject apologies to the black community for the whole thing.  Believing as I do in her total cynicism, I feel quite sure that she figures she got as many votes as she was going to get from Ferraro's racist attacks and that the racists won't mind if she now apologizes to blacks in order not to lose votes on the other side.  

Guys, guys, it doesn't matter what Hillary or Obama want or don't want.  It's what the voters of MI and FL want.

And, I can't believe that having gone to the trouble to vote, and seeing how tight this election is, that they don't want to have a vote that counts.

They certainly don't want to be left out of the primary process that I believe every other state has participated in or will have.

And don't condescend to me, roidubouloi.  This isn't just about Democrats.  This is about democracy.  And I have as much right to have an opinion about it as any America, no matter what party I belong to or sympathize with.

If I were a Florida or Michigan voter, and had been screwed out of a say in this very close race, I would be damn pissed.  And damn pissed with my state government, state party, and the national party for not coming up with whatever was necessary for a re-vote.

Say Chan,

One must always be careful of Greeks bearing gifts, no?

Your opinions about what democracy requires are your opinions.  Your advice about what the Dems need to win, coming from someone who wants them to lose, must be taken with a salt mine or two.  

Is there a Solomon solution? Or a panel of Solomons? Say, David Boies and a few others of his caliber?

(Great chain of comments - I'm  now both more enlightened and more confused.)

roidubouloi:

"Hillary says seat them as is or re-vote.  Obama says don't seat them or re-vote."

So since Hillary says she's OK with a revote, that means she's a monster?

I agree that there might be PRACTICAL reasons why they might have to do a caucus instead of a primary (especially in Florida, because they are in the middle of replacing their voting machines in time for November), but there is no PRINCIPLED reason to prefer a caucus to a primary.

And why do I say Obama is more opposed to a revote than Clinton?  This from the Washington Post:

"The Florida Democratic Party is pushing forward with a plan for recontesting its primary, largely with mail-in ballots, despite vigorous opposition from Democrats in the state's congressional delegation as well as concerns from the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) "

Florida's Mail-In Primary Plan Opens Rifts in Washington and Tallahassee

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008031203295.html

Chan, of course they will be pissed, *they should be pissed,* that's the point. And the respective parties deserve all the opprobrium they are due. That the situation was allowed to go unresolved until now is inexcusable. Heads should roll. Most of all, however, the party must get it that it's time for a new motorcar, and a general primary (or primaries) is the only solution.

"Clinton took a hard line on the controversy yesterday, saying she would absolutely not accept a negotiated apportionment of Florida's delegates, as the state's House delegation has suggested."

_today's Wash Post article buffaloboy cites

Well, f**k Hillary Rodham Clinton. She isn't the party, the party isn't hers. This reminds me of Bush/Gore 2000. Keep pushing until you wear everybody down. If Howard Dean has any b... gumption, he should tell her to just shut up.

fougasseu, that you think of David Boies (a worthy choice though he is) says everything about the direction this is headed. Solomon could only make a difference if he were in a position to crack heads as alternative.

tomeg

"Clinton took a hard line on the controversy yesterday, saying she would absolutely not accept a negotiated apportionment of Florida's delegates, as the state's House delegation has suggested."

Why on Earth would she accept a negotiated settlement, like both delegates get 50% of the delegates?  She said she would accept a revote.  Would you not accept a revote?

here is another thought, do the Texas rout in Florida. Base half the vote on the already done primary, and half on a caucus. If Hillary wins the caucus she will get basically the same delegates as she does now, if Obama wins it, Hillary will be able to use her pop. vote to nullify his caucus win. Hillary can't lose, people who already voted once won't have to feel they have to go back to the polls, as in Texas, and the truly dedicated or those that missed out first time can still go.

Well Buffalo,

I didn't say Hillary is a monster because she will agree to a re-vote (except that she won't).  She's a monster for other reasons.  I disagree with your mischaracterization that it is Obama who has been resisting a re-vote.  He said at the outset that he would support a re-vote while Hillary was still pitching to have FL and MI seated as is.  She has only shifted gears tactically and rhetorically, to give credibility to here insistence on seating them and so that she doesn't look like a complete horse's ass.

The fact that Obama has "concerns" about a never-tried mail-in election is good sense.  But he did not come out and say absolutely not as Hillary has said about the possibility of caucuses, which, at least in MI, are apparently the preferred way of doing business.  The fact remains that Hillary is trying to dictate the timing and method of re-voting.  So far, Obama is not, but is pushing back a bit.  

Either way, it is not for either of the candidates "not to accept."  They literally have nothing to say about the outcome other than to express an opinion -- that's what it means to "express concerns," expressing your opinion.  It is up to the states and the rules committee of the DNC.  Not up to the candidates. The nominating system, good or bad, belongs to the voters, not to the candidates.

It is just the latest expression of the royal hubris of Hillary Clinton that she "refuses to accept" what is not hers to accept or reject.

Time for Hillary to go away. She is merely dragging out the inevitable.  Even with Florida as voted, she will be the loser in delegates and the loser in the popular vote and will be left only with her racist attacks.  Goodbye Hillary.  Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

That's a clever suggestion blackton that, "Hillary will absolutely not accept."  Hillary is only playing games and maneuvering to have the Florida delegation, at least, seated as is.

bufaloboy, a mail in vote is illegal in Florida. I kind of think illegality kind of ruins the whole idea, don't you think. Or do you imagine the Republican legislature is going to revise the law for the Democrats. Hah.

It would be legal if an outside company ran it, but good lord, can you imagine turning over an election to a private company? (especially since zero have the requisite experience)

All right, how about this for a compromise - Florida and Michigan get seated as is, but they can't vote on the first ballot - after that they're all in.  If Obama gets his 2025 votes on the first ballot, he gets a win by a pretty wide margin, and its hard to argue he's illegitimate.  And their delegates are still penalized because nobody gets to stand up and say "The Great State of fill-in-the-blank votes for __________"

I wasn't aware that it's illegal to have a mail-in vote in Florida - if that's true, why would a sitting Florida Senator and a sitting Chairperson of the State Democratic party be pushing it?  Maybe they got the Republicans to agree to pass a law to allow it?

Personally, I don't much like the idea of a mail-in vote - make everybody go to the polls.  And I am on the record already as despising caucuses.  I mean, we hold elections all the time in this country - with nearly three months of notice, how hard could it be to run a simple primary using the same rules that they always use in a primary?