I can't imagine why Clinton would agree to this, nor why the states involved would. It is a form of voter nullification that Obama has been maneuvering for.

hell, that is precisely what I suggested on the other thread. Glad to see people are listening to me. Hah.

pccostello, that result in Florida is exactly the same that was suffered by the Republicans. Are they complaining of voter nullification? It is precisely what the DNC should have done originally.

In such a scenario, both Republicans and Democrats would have suffered the exact same repercussions due to Floridas breaking of the rules. I don't see McCain complaining how he only gained half the delegates, so neither should Hillary.

You're not crazy, but I think it's bad for Obama because it allows Hillary to count the entire Florida and Michigan vote totals, and that's her best hope for victory.  Obama will sound weak saying "no, those votes only count .5 as well" or talking about not being on the ballot. After Pennsyvania, Hillary will claim she's ***winning*** because she has the most total votes (when you count the votes as-is, Obama only is now only up 80,000 - 150,000 depending on how you pro-rata the delagate states).

Plus, I think in a re-vote he could win Michigan, blunting Hillary's "big state" argument and almost guaranteeing he wins the total popular vote.  

Yeah, I don't buy this for one second.  Less delegates than she could potentially get from do-overs in both states, coupled with zero "momentum" from the wins- that's just about the worst possible scenario for Clinton.  Huge mistake for her.  

If this is really on the table and Obama fights it, I'm going to seriously question his campaign's judgement.

Another question- why do Obama and Clinton have any say in this?  Isn't this a DNC/state party battle?

well, since both sides see major pitfalls - it sounds like a go to me.  I'll give an edge to Hillary simply because she managed to finagle anything positive from cheating.

"It is a form of voter nullification that Obama has been maneuvering for." What?? As I recall both campaigns agreed not to campaign in either state. In addition, both states knew ahead of the vote that the DNC would not seat the delegates resulting from the primaries. Since that time Hillary has been the one "maneuvering" as she has tried to seat the delegates because she like the results of the primary. She tries to veil this through some voter empowerment BS. Obama has been very specific and consistent on this. He followed the rules as they were laid out by the DNC but he would like Michigan and Florida voters to have a say as long as there is a fair way to do so. I don't see how this is "maneuvering"?

before blackton tears me a new one, I agree that something like this should have been done originally.  I just think now legitimizing the vote in any way and just putting in a delagate penalty benefits Clinton more than Obama -- if it goes down she just won two more big states, two more battleground states, and completely muddied-up the popular vote question.  If there's a way for superdelagates to say "Hillary won the popular vote, I can't go against that"  I think she leaps at it.  Now, she may not win the popular vote, but this would sure put her a lot closer.  

I agree that it sounds great for Obama. But this is a zero-sum game. If it's great for Obama, it's terrible for Clinton.

Also, Clinton's strategy seems to be to make at least every plausible argument for anything that could net them more delegates. This plan envisions Michigan effectively not counting. I have a hard time imagining Clinton simply going along with this, when there'd be an obvious argument that it disenfranchises Michigan.

"Nullification" would be letting the people of two states vote twice but only letting the people of the other 48 states, plus DC and the territories, vote once.

As soon as someone proposes letting me vote twice, too, then I'll be cool with MI and FL voting twice. In the meantime, screw 'em. They made a choice to cheat in hopes that they could affect the race by creating early momentum. They knew that the price for this cheating would be electing no delegates. Their chicanery didn't work out for them like they hoped, and now they come crying to us about "nullification" and "disenfranchisement." Give me a break! They tried to disenfranchise the rest of us by preempting our primaries with their own.

It's as if Barry Bonds doped up on steroids and then whined that it wasn't fair that the pitcher struck him out anyway and now he wants a do-over.

That said, I'm for seating MI and FL's delegates, whether as-is or in any other compromise of reduced delegation size. Provided that their cheating is not rewarded by letting them affect the outcome of the nomination.

But no second votes until the rest of us get to have our votes count twice too.

I think Obama's campaign is resisting what is obviously a great deal for them in hopes that their protestations will make the infantile Clinton campaign desire it.

It's a meaningless phrase ginned up out of desperation, but damn: "Voter nullification" sure does sound scary!

Boo!

I don't see a downside for the Obama campaign. Seems like a good plan, both substantively and for Obama.

lymon, you got your numbers off on the popular vote, Obama picked up 100,000 in Miss. and will pick up sizeable ones in other states. Not too sure caucus states will buy into your logic either. It is not total yards that wins the game but total points. Yards are votes but points are delegates. Anyway, before all of this is over neither Dem will have a shot because I hate Hillary more and more, and people like Pc won't vote for Obama (unless she is totally unprincipaled). Burn Democratic party burn. This really appeals to my nihilistic side.

Now I'm wondering if *I'm* the one that's crazy (don't answer that please)!  Hillary's not going to catch up in pledged delagates -- the math makes that clear.  She has a slim chance to catch Obama in the popular vote, but this depends on Florida and Michigan counting, or repeating the same results, particularly Florida (see Real Clear Politics' running total).  Why would Obama do anything to legitimize those votes?  

The second Obama tries to discount those totals under this deal, Clinton's people will claim *he's* the one that's going back on his deal, that he feared a re-vote given what happened in all the other big states.  The deal is that the votes are legit but the state is penalized number of delagates.  It's hard to logically dispute that for Florida, and that's where the biggest total vote gain was for Clinton.  What more could Clinton hope for?  A slightly smaller gap in delagates and the chance that Obama wins Michigan?  

blackton -- talk to RCP, not me.  They've got it at 80,000 including Mississippi (before that Clinton was slightly ahead, but that was counting MI/FL) without the caucus states, Koz had some numbers that pro-rata'd in the caucus states.  

Yes, it's total yards first, but Obama can't win in total yards (nor can clinton) -- the game will be going to overtime.  

As it sits now, Michigan and Florida will not be seated, they broke the rules, they knew the consequences, and that's it. Clinton doesn't want a revote, that's why her people have been fighting against it for months.  A revote will be enormously expensive, and no one wants to pay for it since everyone who's not delusional knows the results will be an even delegate split, Clinton will surely lose more delegates in Florida with a new primary where Obama has a chance to campaign in the state and shine in front of glowing crowds, specifically in South Florida Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County were all the Democratic influence money and population reside.  And Michigan will be the same, it's even likely that Clinton will lose Michigan, either way the delegates will be split about even.

Whatever happens one thing is sure, Hillary Clinton is going down, and she's going down hard, kicking and screaming all the way.  I suspect they'll have to drag her out of the Colorado convention after she and Bill attack Obama at the podium after he receives the nomination. It'll be like a Jerry Springer show, where the cops and security have to drag the trailer trash out the backdoor to be shipped off to the nearest sanitarium for massive injections of Thorazine and several weeks of observation.  :-)

Still makes sense to me to strip FL and MI of their superdelegates.

Anyway, PA has been discounted in Clinton's favor. Unless she wins in a blowout (and that means winning Philadelphia and Pittsburgh outright), it won't materially affect current standings. OTOH, if Obama manages an upset, there go the superdelegates.

This'll be decided in May, and Clinton needs to show she can win smaller states. If Obama sweeps the primaries in May, it's hard to see even a 100 to 0 blow-out in Puerto Rico in June salvaging Clinton's campaign.

lymon1, I utterly fail to see how, if the Michigan delegation is just split fifty-fifty, the "vote total" of the original primary can be counted in any calculation of the popular vote, particularly when Obama wasn't even on the ballot (does he get all of the "uncommitted' vote added to his total?).  Such a split would effectively declare the original balloting null and void, and if the purpose of this is to convince the superdelegates that HRC got more total votes, well, they can count and they're not THAT stupid.

Yes, you are clinically insane, lymon1. Obama has one only one of the states with more than 15 electoral votes and that would be his home state of Illinois. Ohio? No. New York? No. California? No. In Michigan, when Obama and Edwards urged people to vote Uncommitted, more than 50% of voters chose her. Let's see... Texas? No. (And the caucuses there were screwy, just like caucuses evrywhere).  New Jersey? Not a chance!  And who's leading in Pennsylvania... um, I don't think it's Barack Obama.

As a rabid Obama partisan, I think t his is a sensible solution. he should accept .

Jadamsf:

I'm not sure why you chose 15 arbitrarily....I recommend you watch this Colbert Report segment on how silly the "big state" argument is:

www.comedycentral.com/.../videos.jhtml

Also - not that it matters, but Obama won or will win NC (15), VA (13), Georgia (15), Washington (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Maryland (10), and is tied in the polls in Michigan for a revote (17).

Maybe someone has mentioned it before and I missed it but if DNC decides to seat the MI & FL delegates with a penalties for jumping the primary calendar I don't see how the superdelegates would forget about all the shenanigans that have been involved in the whole MI / FL primary debacle and take that into account when voting. The only reason Hillary wants to seat both MI and FL "as is"  is because she thinks she'll be able to convince the superdelegates to see the final results at the convention "as is" when that isn't the case. Every superdelegate will know what went on behind closed doors to get that deal done and should, in good faith take that into account when voting that neither MI or FL's vote totals qualify towards the total popular vote and the seated delegates are penalized. But then at this point, nothing that Clinton does should shock n' awe me but I keep getting surprised by the sheer audacity at her power grab of inevitability.

Tim --  fair enough, but I think the rest of my argument remains.  Hillary didn't win Michigan by that much and could well lose a re-vote.  This deal gives her the Florida vote that shrinks her gap considerably.  If she wins Pennsylvania by the same margin as Ohio, the race will be nearly tied.  And it deprives Obama a good chance to answer the "shouldn't our nominee win at least one big state" nag.  No, it doesn't put Hillary in any sort of "great shape" but it sure strikes me as getting her there quicker.  Another advantage: she won't have to spend $$$ in Michigan and Florida.  Texas and Ohio showed that she can survive being outspent as long as she has enough money to make her presence known.    

Jad -- I think you misread me, you're making my argument.  Hillary would like this deal because it adds Florida and Michigan (or at least makes Michigan a nullity) and supports that very argument.  If Michigan re-voted and Obama won, he'd have put the "can't win a key state" argument to bed.  

"Yes, it's total yards first, but Obama can't win in total yards (nor can clinton) -- the game will be going to overtime."

Depends on your definition of "yards" and "overtime."

According to RCP, Obama's total delegates, including supers, is 1618.

Assume he gets 1/2 of the remaining delegates: say, 280.  Total, 1898.

Remaining supers not declared: 335.  Assume Obama gets 1/2, or 167.  Total: 2067.  Obama is nominated.

I can't believe it, the only people who seem to agree with me on this is apparently the Obama campaign -- this might be the first time we've been in-sync since the Illinois primary :-)

jadamsf: You're making the same miscalculation Mark Penn repeatedly does. Just because Obama didn't win those larger states in the primary doesn't mean that he can't sew up a winning coalition there in the fall. In fact, you may have seen that while the numbers don't favor him next month there, in the general election he's actually running ahead of Clinton against McCain. So your math is useless in determining electability.

VA-Don't forget Missouri (11). He barely won it, but it counts.

Tim -- no argument with that except that the superdelagates are more fluid.  I expect Obama to win both pledged delagates and popular vote and at that point it should be OVER -- if Hillary presses on it will be shameless. BUT if Hillary somehow rebounds and eeks out a win in the popular vote, I don't know how the superdelagates deny her the nomination without it reeking to the high heavens.  "Oh, that stuff about all votes counting equally...we didn't really mean it.  We actually like the gerrymandered districts and less than democratic caucuses and we're just going to rubber stamp that."   If anything it argues for undecides to vote for Obama and avoid (or minimize) the bloodletting that would follow in such a scenario.  

I kind of agree with Lymon here. As soon as Michigan seats delegates, its 55% Hillary voters "count" for the popular vote whether or not they're legit. This is Hillary's best hope to get the nomination. I wouldn't even revolt if the supers went her way if she went in with the official "popular vote." (Which will sound more legitimate than "pledged delegate count" come November.)

If that's the case, I envision a bunch of high-power unaligned Democrats (Gore, Pelosi, Edwards, etc.) showing up on television with a bunch of defectors from the losing camp to tell everyone to satisfice with whoever they agree on as superdelegates. (Edwards being a super-super-delegate for having 26 slave monkeys at the convention)

Jadamsf: wtf? yeah, 2/3rds of America doesn't matter, let us just count the states the Hillary won, whoops pretty much the only ones she won were bigger ones (and like she will carry Texas in November). Hillary has only done well in Latino states or states with a lot of old people. Great coalition, way to build for the future.

virginiacentrist, the reason Jadamsf chose the number 15 is because that was the number Mark Penn and the Hillaristas started putting out as a talking point today. And obviously they chose that number because any other number would have left Obama with a majority of states listed.

Now if only Hillary can find 11 more states with 15 electoral votes, that will be the 270 she needs to win in November. Ontario, maybe? Caisota? Winnemac?

As it stands right now, Clinton would take the popular vote if the voters of Michigan and Florida had their current votes count. As I have pointed out in previous posts, Obama has won mostly caucus states, where those who work certain shifts or have kids and can't pay for babysitting. In addition, the primaries he has won are in states that have "open" primaries. If he can't appeal to the Democratic working class (and he is the candidate of the liberal elites in places like Latteland Seattle), the lunch-pail set in Detroit, New York City, Miami, Philadelphia and Cleveland will vote for McCain. Don't be so sure he can win those states with a candidate that has the kind of crossover appeal that McCain has. The red states where he has done so well will not bring him many votes. Sorry, Nebraska, South Dakota, Idaho and Mississippi are just not going to go blue. Forget it. In your dreams.

lymon, don't worry, I still disagree. Hillary might make up ground in Pa. but will lose it again in North Carolina and Oregon. She is basing everything on one state but she best get off her ass and campaign in Indiana, if she loses there she is done.

And as to the notion that superdelegates are going to be swayed by Hillary's argument that not counting Caucuses but only primaries is the way to go...I am not persuaded. The total vote is thin gruel and might work against John Edwards but against Obama? Most superdelegates need black votes to survive in their own careers, I just can't see them pissing on the black vote, a bunch of white pols saying no, give the white pol another term in the White House (emphasis on white). Hillary supporters trend old too. If Obama leads in delegates and he doesn't f up and lose most of the races here on out, it is his.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Obama can lose but he does have to seriously tank from here on out.

I have not heard any such number from Mark Penn or the Clinton campaign: all I did was look at the electoral map. By the way, you can make you own electoral map and see how you think things will play out in various scenarios at http://www.270towin.com/

Did you hear Hillary claim on NPR this morning that she was "instrumental" during the Clinton Administration when it came to foreign policy in Northern Ireland?

From NPR:

"On the campaign trail, Clinton has touted her foreign policy experience and told NPR that she has represented the U.S. government in more than 80 countries, including working in Northern Ireland.

"She explains that she went [to Northern Ireland] with State Department officials, as a part of the team that included principal negotiators who were under the authority of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"'I wasn't sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental,' she tells [Steve] Inskeep."

www.npr.org/.../story.php

I always thought "instrumental" used in that way meant you played a very important role in getting something done.

Maybe she is wonder woman, if she can do that without even being at the negotiating table.

See here:

blogs.tnr.com/.../16537.aspx

Or try this:

i207.photobucket.com/.../hrc-ww.jpg

epackard, yeah that was a golden oldie, seems like a lifetime ago.

jadamsf,

You've got to work on your math.  Right now, Obama has more than a 400,000 popular vote lead, not including MI and no one takes the MI vote as meaning anything.  You cannot be the only name on the ballot and claim victory.  If the election were held again, with both on the ballot, Obama would probably win.  Hillary and the superdelegates know that.

In the remaining races, Hillary stands to pick up a net of about 150,000 popular votes at best.  That means she will arrive at the convention 250,000 down out of about 30 million votes cast,  By way of comparison that is about double the margin by which Gore out-polled Bush in 2000 (500,000 votes out of more than 100 million votes cast).

Hillary will be the loser in delegates and the loser in the popular vote by a respectable margin for presidential elections.  The super-delegates are not going to vote for a different outcome.  Moreover, at present rates -- and Obama will do better than the present rates because of his electoral victories -- Hillary's margin among super-delegates would be about 60.  He will have a margin of at least 160 pledged delegates going into the convention.  That means that he will win by a margin of at least 100.  However, the super-delegates will end up voting his way so that his margin will not appear slim.  More likely 250 to 300.

To put it another way, Hillary has to make up a margin from the super-delegates of about 130 if she gets to count Florida.  There are 335 who have not yet declared.  To win by a single vote, she would need to pick up 70% of the remaining supers compared to the 53% she has claimed thus far.  Ain't gonna happen.

The race is over barring some calamity for Obama.  But, as mentioned above, Hillary will go out kicking, spitting, screaming, and whining.  That's just the kind of human being she is.  The party be damned.

bhl,

the problem for obama in florida and michigan is that he has always fails to "sew up a winning coalition" in any large, diverse state. He wins in republican heavily white states when there are very small groups of liberal democrats, but no democratic mainstream; and in states with heavy african-american populations. That's it. So the danger to him is that he would again lose decisively in a large state like Florida and would lose more closely in Michigan. If that happened, his credibility as a national candidate would disappear. Thus, he has to angle for a voter nullification deal rather than actually face the voting, and he has to pretend that he is not trying to block a real vote.

"voter nullification"

Booga booga booga!

Obama is pursuing voter nullification oin Florida and Michigan, while pretending that he is not. More disingenuousness from the man who "accidentally" hit the wrong voting button so often.

From Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic:

I>>>>n a press conference, Florida Dem. chair Karen Thurman seemed a little pessimistic about the chances of the first draft of a mail-in primary being accepted by the DNC and making it through to the voters unimpeded. "We've got to come to some kind of conclusion," she said. "I'm not sure there is one." Specifically, she said, if the candidates do not agree, "this is not happening."

So far, Barack Obama does not agree.

At this point, it would seem as if the biggest hurdle to a new primary is the lack of a non-biased sponsor. Clinton allies have promised to put up their share of the money, but Obama allies in Florida, including his Florida finance chair, Kirk Wagar, are keeping their wallets closed.<<<<<<

Playing to nullify four million votes is not a nice thing to do.

good luck with this line pc.  All Hillary and her supporters have left is spin.  Hillary has been resisting a re-vote for months and the inside story, if you read past any headlines, is that she still is.

It is a remarkable part of the Hillary spin that winning more delegates and votes than Hillary still does not make Obama a "viable candidate" because of this constituency, that one, or the other one.  His votes are the wrong color.  On the other hand, she loses badly to a newcomer to presidential politics and this is supposed to indicate her viability.  It is beyond perverse.  It is completely asinine.

Enjoy the short time left that you and Hillary have on stage, pc.  Learn how to count.  Hillary has already lost no matter the spin.  This campaign is over.  We're just waiting for the curtain to ring down on her increasingly spiteful self -- and the spinning fantasists on her behalf ("If Pittsburgh Hispanics have a big lunch on Monday, and the out-of work Democrats hear a few more reminders that they are all racists who won't vote for a black, and Hillary steals a couple of delegates in Florida, and we include the "popular vote" in MI, and John McCain drops dead before June 10, Hillary's chances are excellent.  She has Obama on the ropes now.  He's clearly not viable because "uncommitted" didn't break 46% in MI which is the classic standard for viability of 'uncommitted" in years in which there are more than four Fridays in the month of May and the weather causes low voter turnout in Tompkins County.").  

The one good thing about Hillary coming out as her real thoroughly nasty, Karl Rove, Republican self is that, by the time of the convention, there will be no buyer's remorse in the Democratic party.  Huge swaths of the party while just be grateful to be rid of her.  I cannot wait.