What would be the likely net gain in delegates for Hillary if MI and FL are seated? And what would be the new delegate total required to achieve a majority if these delegates are seated?

Rhubarbs:

My understanding is that it would be somewhere between a 45-50 boost for HRC in delegates.

Julian Bond's respectability has been lowered to the level of a corrupt NJ black preacher on the dole of the Democratic machine. I took his class at UVA. He worked honorably in the civil rights movement. But the guy is nothing but a Clinton hack at this point.

I can't imagine Clinton getting enough support to launch a "civil war" if she doesn't have either more total votes or regular delagates (exclusing MI/FL).  As I wrote yesterday, if she has more total votes, I think she has a legitimate claim -- the rules give no guidelines as to how superdelagates should vote and given how much criticism there was of the electoral college in 2000, if the gerrymandered district-proportionality system doesn't produce a clear winner, votes are as good a decision rubric as any.  

IF Clinton is within striking distance, she shouldn't try to seat MI/FL but seek a revote in those states.  Do people hate Clinton so much here that they don't think the voters of MI and FL should have a say in the primaries because 1) the state moved up the primary and 2) unlike the GOP, the Dems completely disenfranchised them as punishment?  

For once I agree with VC -- the timing of Bond's letter (let alone the content) makes it nothing less than an unseemly Clinton endorsement.  

I think there should be a revote in the MI/FL (DNC funded), but it isn't like the state parties had no idea they would be punished.  I think it is a shitty situation all around, but yes- I would far prefer to have them vote.  And I also agree, even as a staunch Barack supporter, that if Hill ends up with more popular votes the supers should do what they want.  

Plus, she did herself few favors by giving the following concession speech:

datacore.sciflicks.com/.../mars_attacks_bold_talk.wav

"Do people hate Clinton so much here that they don't think the voters of MI and FL should have a say in the primaries because 1) the state moved up the primary and 2) unlike the GOP, the Dems completely disenfranchised them as punishment?"

"Disenfranchised" is a little much- keep in mind that people do not have a right to determine how political parties select their candidates.  That being said, of course I (and I assume most people) think that Michigan and Florida voters should be able to participate in the established process.  I think it's a shame that their state legislatures are full of grandstanding idiots, and if someone could come up with a reasonable way to schedule and pay for primaries/caucuses in those states in the next couple of months, I hope the DNC finds a way to get it done.

I assume that these totals do NOT include the caucus states, right?  If such states are not included, the "vote total" seems rather arbitrary, no?

revote in Florida and Michigan. Hillary is braindead if she doesn't push for it. She can look like a politician doing the right thing, at the risk of losing (thereby increasing her chances of winning) or she can stick to the stupid default position she is doing now. Winning in Florida soon (as soon as they can revote) which is demographically likely, would also give her a big bounce for the home stretch. She wouldn't have to do a Guiliani and treat Texas as her only hope.

Do the right thing Hillary, it is also the right thing for you.

I think MI and FL should vote again, but I think there should be some penalty for their state parties, perhaps making them pay at least half the cost of the new balloting costs. And maybe give them back their pledged delegates, but their superdelegates lose the privilege of voting in the first 2 rounds at the convention.

jmurph:  I hear you but I think disenfranchise is the right word because for all practical purposes we have a two-party system and this effectively takes the voice away from the voters (at least the GOP gave them 50%).  

lucan: I agree -- I think that the caucus states need to be factored in by a pro-rata vote -- definitely imperfect but better (imo) than the alternative.  

hrlngrv: how about this: MI/FL lose their superdelagates -- now that's punishing the party where it hurts!  RIght now it's ass-backwards, the voters get punished, the superdelagates are welcome!

Folks -

It doesn't matter. She'll drop out on March 6th. That's two days after the March 4th primaries, according to my math. One day for mourning, recriminations, and screaming at Bill across the hall in his separate bedroom. Another day to emerge as the gracious, intelligent, warm leader that we all know she is. And following her concession speech, the media says "Wow, if she had only exhibited that amount of passion and eloquence during the campaign, maybe she could have stemmed the tide of Barack Obama." It's all very predictable.

For more on why she'll drop out on March 4th, see this:

mydd.com/.../96963

If I'm doing the math right, FL and MI together have 313 pledged delegates. So seating them raises the total required for a majority by 157 delegates.

That means there's a very small numerical window for Hillary to reverse an Obama majority by adding MI and FL. Obama's current lead is outside of that window; he could seat MI and FL right now and it would not even cut his elected delegate lead in half.

Lymon

I agree completely. I think a revote is the best thing to do. As a practical matter, the perception that FL and MI dems were disenfranchised would bode very ill for the general, particularly in Florida.

But Sen. Clinton's folks are pushing very hard AGAINST this approach.

Lymon,

I have little sympathy for Michigan and Florida. Their disenfranchisement is self-inflicted; they knew the rules and violated them so they could have more influence on the outcome. Oops. I bet they wish now they had waited to hold their primaries until early March.

The candidates agreed to respect the DNC’s decision. All of them. At that time Hillary could have made a protest. She did not. Only after Hillary Clinton found herself in a tight race did she start to cry for the plight of the Michigander and Floridian. And she made this call , of course, only after voting had finished in Michigan--where Obama and Edwards had taken their name off the ballot--and only after she saw herself up in Florida a couple days before the “primary.” Would she have done this if Obama was up?

We have no idea if those primaries show the actual sentiment of the voters in those states, but it is reasonable to assume they do not. In Michigan, Obama supporters were unable to vote for their candidate and many likely stayed home. I know there were a lot of “uncommitted” voters, but how excited would you be to vote for “uncommitted” in a primary you have been told will award no delegates? I have to think a lot of people stay home who would otherwise have voted.

As for Florida, the candidates agreed not to campaign there (as Clinton and Gore had in 1996 when Delaware moved its primary up before a set date and was stripped of its delegates.) Everywhere Obama has campaigned his numbers have gone up. I have no reason to think it would have been different in Florida. The problem is, we don’t know.

A re-vote would be a bad idea: it rewards breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida decided to move up the primary before the DNC’s earliest allowed date to have a greater influence on the nomination. Now, when things are very tight, where every delegate counts, we are going to let them re-vote and have even greater influence?

Also, a re-vote there would be unfair to Obama. Hillary has, for selfish reasons, painted herself the patron saint of the Michigan and Florida primary voter. It doesn’t seem right to make Obama run against that when he stayed true to his agreement and Hillary did not.

Michigan and Florida will probably end up being seated, and they probably should be, but the delegates should not be allocated based on the results of the sham primaries. The delegates should be awarded based on the popular vote throughout the country (fine, even including the votes in Michigan and Florida.) That should be their punishment.

I'd be fascinated by how they would campaign in Florida/Michigan.  Would Obama make a pitch to Michigan's Arab population the way George W. Bush did in 2000?  Would Hillary play the race card again given Michigan's demographics?  

"Also, a re-vote there would be unfair to Obama. Hillary has, for selfish reasons, painted herself the patron saint of the Michigan and Florida primary voter. It doesn’t seem right to make Obama run against that when he stayed true to his agreement and Hillary did not."

totally true.

I have sympathy for the voters in MI and FL, but seriously - those delegates should not be seated.  Why?  Well, any voter who was paying attention (people who vote tend to pay SOME attention) would know that their vote was more meaningless than usual.  They knew the vote wasn't going to count.  They knew that they had been screwed by the state party officials.

A re-vote would be nice, but I just don't see it happening.  Hillary won't agree to overturn results favorable to her, and chances are the contests would be scheduled in a couple of months - I doubt Hillary will have the cash to even stay in the race that long.

Adam, nowhere in your post do you show any concern for the Michigan/Florida voter -- I don't buy that they should get screwed.  And remember, the GOP gave them 50% representation -- that could have big implications in the fall.  Again, in a 2-party system, this is a major de-empowerment of the voter and regardless of MI/FL fault, the Democratic Party has the power to fix it.  If they don't it's to their shame as well.

I also don't buy that the revote favors Hillary -- if it does why are her surrogates like Bill Nelson fighting against it?  In Michigan the high "undecided" vote indicates pleanty of anti-HRC feeling, and that's just in a beauty contest.  

FInally, let's be honest: if Obama was behind by, say, 10 delagates and .2% of the popular vote, you know he'd be calling for a revote.  

Obama and Hillary have flipped in a breathtakingly fast reversal in Rasmussen's numbers - 41 Clinton, 46 Obama.

It's over.

Lymon,

I have concern for the voters in Michigan and Florida, but their argument is with their legislators who moved up the primary: not the DNC. The states were told by the DNC not to have primaries before February 5. Michigan and Florida violated that rule and the delegates were stripped. The primary could have been moved back to February 5 or later and the delegates would have been given back; but Michigan and Florida did nothing. So Michigan and Florida voters should scream bloody murder, but at their state legislators.

Bill Nelson is against a re-vote because Hillary might not do as well in Florida as she did the first time. She had a big margin of victory in the “primary,” so the Clinton campaign doesn’t want to risk losing delegates they claim they have already won.  

Finally, if Obama was 10 delegates and .2% percent of the popular vote behind, I drive to Wisconsin and start going door to door convincing, begging, pleading, and possibly bribing people to vote for Obama. Then I’d go to Ohio and do the same. But I wouldn’t be whining about counting delegates and votes that Obama agreed wouldn’t count. (I'm don't mean you are whining, I'm talking about the Clinton campaign.)  

Well, I think the MI/FL voters have arguments with both the legislators and the DNC.  For example "DNC, the RNC gave only took half our delagates, why did you feel the need to completely disenfranchise us?"  or "Why are you punishing us instead of the legislators -- strip the superdelagates, not us!"   Particularly egregious is the voter who either voted for a state legislator who opposed the shift in the primary date or voted against one who supported the shift. My other point was that if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think Obama or his supporters are so noble as to tank it -- they'd be championing the voters' cause as well (say my stats were at the end of the process).  

As a 2004 poll watcher in Wisconsin, I can tell you that you can only give up to $.50 worth of stuff to people waiting in line (like miniture candies).  At least that's what one of the election judges told me.

Lymon,

Everyone loves a piece of Bazooka bubble gum...

adam, you are wrong about revoting. The DNC said that Michigan and Floridas vote will be nothing more than a beauty contest, that the only vote that will count will be supertuesday or after, so if Florida and Michigan reschedule their contests they will be following the rules laid out, to which you say, no, lets punish them, they broke the rules so we should break the rules ourselves. You can't say that because that vote didn't count, no vote should count. You can't ignore it (by not counting it) and pay attention to it (by not counting anything later on) at the same time. The fairest solution is revote.

Blackton,

Actions have consequences. Michigan and Florida had their chance to vote; they decided it was more important to vote early than to have their delegates seated. But now that it appears those delegates might be rather important, we should let them re-vote?

Under than thinking, Illinois should be able to say "oh, well, we did realize how important the delegates were; so we're going to re-vote and really run up the score here."

I like lymon's idea: seat the MI and FL pledged delegates (giving all the MI undecided ones to Obama?), strip their superdelegates, especially Levin and Nelson.

I am predicting (and so far my predictions have all come true---I've got a better track record than anyone in the media) that Hillary loses Texas. Not just delegates, but also popular vote. Mark me down for that one.

The funny thing is, FL Dems in the state legislature actually opposed changing the primary date.  The GOP legislature voted to move it up over Dem objections, and Crist signed it.  So FL basically got screwed by their own party for something they didn't do.  I love politics.

[Patrick Appel] Paul Lukasiak tries to argue that Clinton actually has the popular vote lead. John Cole summarizes Paul's argument: Apparently, if you only count votes up to Super Tuesday,discount every state that had a caucus, only go by the exit p