Why would either candidate support a re-vote in Michigan and Florida?

posted at 10:03 am on March 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

I don’t get it. Like Karl says, neither one of them has a rational interest in compromising; I’d go a step further and say neither one of them (but especially Obama) has an interest in holding new elections. Hillary has more of an interest, of course, since she’ll likely win and pick up delegates, but as we’ve discussed, the pick-up will be marginal and Obama’s likely to do better in the popular vote this time around now that he’s the frontrunner. The popular vote is what she cares about since it buttresses her moral case for the nomination before the superdelegates, so why give him a chance to cut into that with a re-vote (especially when the re-vote polls are grim)? Better to sit on what she’s got and go whine to the credentials committee at the convention about disenfranchisement to see if they can’t be muscled into validating the results.

And what’s Obama’s logic? The last thing he wants to do is lose two more big battleground states fair and square, even if he makes it close and claims a pyrrhic victory in having reduced her margins of victory. Granted, that would be preferable to having the credentials committee validate her earlier wins, but why not take his chances in trying to muscle them the other way? Even if they side with her, at least he’s preserved his objection that the process was illegitimate, which may weigh on superdelegates who are afraid of Hillary being nominated and jeered as “selected, not elected.” If he agrees to the re-vote and loses, even narrowly, he waives that objection.

What am I missing here?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Answer: The Republicans win.

More voting, more dirt throwing, more backstabbing. More fun.

Aristotle on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM

AP, I think they’re being hoist by their own Florida 2000 petard. They have made the “disenfranchisement” practically a doctrine of faith, and to allow Florida and Michigan to go completely unrepresented would break that spell quite effectively.

Ed Morrissey on March 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM

The Democrats have produced a horrible jug screw. Should these jackasses worm their way into the White House and manage the country like they manage their own political party . . . we’re all doomed.

rplat on March 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Like I posted in the other area…typical liberal thought, you do wrong, they go about to punish, and end up giving Mich. more power and influence…they just can’t get it right.
*
So for Mich. & Florida, breaking the rules ended up being a benefit under the liberal philosophy.

right2bright on March 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Methinks you’re missing the dark agenda. To quote Obama’s spiritual advisor and inspiration for the title of his autobiography, “It’s not God bless America… it’s God DAMN America! God DAMN America!”

What better way to achieve that sinister goal than to completely implode one of this country’s two political parties? Brought to you by Obama’s other spirtual — and financial — guru, George Soros.

Now let’s all hold hands and play “Don’t Forget the Lyrics”

Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham,
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lotta people, but it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone.
Has anybody here seen my old friend John,
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lotta people, but it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone.
Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin,
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lotta people, but it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone.
Didn’t you love the things they stood for?
Didn’t they try to find some good for you and me?

miles on March 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

I saw on Fox & Friends(yeah I know)where some lady accused the GOP gov and congress in FL for the early primary and they are at fault for the whole delegate mess. Of course she forgot to mention who holds the gov and congress in Michigan…

Sammy316 on March 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Hahaa, this is political pr0n!

Alden Pyle on March 14, 2008 at 10:28 AM

The radio this morning in Michigan reported that MI Dems are close to a deal on a revote. If they propose it, I think it would be very hard for either candidate to oppose voting.

Clark1 on March 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM

And what’s Obama’s logic?

An attempt to portray a refusal to have a re-vote as voters disenfranchisement has been successful. He has no choice.

freevillage on March 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM

My only guess as to why both are chomping on this with such “vigor” is due to the fact that neither wants to be seen anywhere near the “Great Ballpark of Disenfranchisement”, and are willing (nay: forced by previously established train of political positioning) to maneuver themselves to disagree with anything that could possibly be construed as “disenfranchising behavior”.

That’s my guess. Liberal rhetoric once again positioned to wag democratic dog.

ChipDWood on March 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM

“AP, I think they’re being hoist by their own Florida 2000 petard. They have made the “disenfranchisement” practically a doctrine of faith, and to allow Florida and Michigan to go completely unrepresented would break that spell quite effectively.”

…or yea, what he said.

ChipDWood on March 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Hillary needs to win states. It matters less how many delegates she picks up vis-a-vis Obama, or even the popular vote, if she wins Michigan it solidifies her claim of being able to win the big states (Obama’s reverend problem coupled with Detroit’s mayor’s problems might sway some Democrats to vote for McCain). And if Michigan gets a do-over, then it’ll be hard to deny Fla. People will read just the headline, Michigan gets a do-over, Florida doesn’t, and will wonder about the Democratic Party’s fairness; they won’t read the minutia about Fla. being the result of the state legislature while Mi is due to the Democratic Party.

Hillary needs to be able to go to the superdelegates and make her case about being able to compete against McCain. It’s all about wooing those Party memebers.

rbj on March 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM

An attempt to portray a refusal to have a re-vote as voters disenfranchisement has been successful. He has no choice.

The disenfranchisement game can be played both ways. The Obama camp’s already objected to a mail-in primary on grounds that the vote would be unfair and too vulnerable to error. They could argue that there’s simply no way to have a proper result now in the time left and that it’s the Florida Democratic party that disenfranchised people by moving up the primary.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Who wins?

Mitt Romney.

Have you learned nothing from Hugh Hewitt?

Jack M. on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM

It’s not so much the support, but the appearance of support. Here you have two victims crying for life saving “justice” and it’s a two ambulance race to see who can hand it to them. If, however, neither can, it will still be important for each to be seen next to the corpses, all tired and sweaty from having tried to save them.

If they do save them, the first to have come up with the bright idea on how to do it, will have the sole absolute moral authority to demand their allegiance.

Dusty on March 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM

it’s the Florida Democratic party that disenfranchised people by moving up the primary.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM

The Dems are moving away from this. They are attempting to shift blame. RE: my earlier post.

Sammy316 on March 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I saw on Fox & Friends(yeah I know)where some lady accused the GOP gov and congress in FL for the early primary and they are at fault for the whole delegate mess. Of course she forgot to mention who holds the gov and congress in Michigan…

Not to mention that fact that the bill in Florida was passed 37-2 in the Senate, and 118-0 in the House.

Can you say “bi-partisan support”?

I R A Darth Aggie on March 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM

could this just be a case of the messiah getting cocky and stupid?

you really can’t blame him, with all the stupid s**t we are seeing come out of hillary’s corner…

or does one of them know something that we don’t know?

homesickamerican on March 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM

The only way out that makes sense comes from Karl Rove. Let the primaries play out with Obama getting the popular vote by a large enough margin that Clinton’s potential delegates wouldn’t tip the balance. Obama could then be magnanimous and declare that it was more important that Michigan and Florida be counted. He goes into the convention with the majority (but fewer) popularly elected delegates and nobody has to get down to the nasty business of “re-do” politics.

BTW, Michigan Dems are attempting to attach a privately funded “re-do” to a regularly scheduled election dealing with taxes for education. Were I in the GOP-majority state Senate I would soundly reject the Democrat plan because there would, sadly, be a disproportionate number of Democrats drawn to the polls to vote.

highhopes on March 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM

What am I missing here?

Are they banking on the fact that someone who voted GOP will try to vote in this? Never mentioning that a lot of those that voted Republican were crossover because they knew the Democrat votes wouldn’t count. See look at how evil in dirty trickerrific the GOP is!

- The Cat

P.S. Real reason? If they leave a state out, then people will get that their votes don’t count and that it’s all down to the supers.

MirCat on March 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges. Rules? we don’t need no stinkin’ rules.

pueblo1032 on March 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM

AP,

Thanks for the Protein Wisdom link, per usual. One thing I increasingly kick myself for not bookmarking is a poll I cannot find now that broke down the national Clinton-Obama numbers between states that had already voted (incl FL & MI) and those that had yet to vote. It lends support to your supposition that Obama would do better on those revotes now.

The other thing I did not mention at PW about possible revotes is they would be laden with irony. FL & MI moved up their primaries to increase their influence. The DNC stripped them of delegates to prevent them from having that influence. Yet until recently, the DNC was willing to finance (and would likely still accept) do-overs in these two states near the end of the process in the one year where going last tends to magnify their influence.

Karl on March 14, 2008 at 12:04 PM

I’d go a step further and say neither one of them (but especially Obama) has an interest in holding new elections.

The answer lies in how this all was structured. Keep in mind that the Clintons still have some operational control of the DNC. They pushed for the moving back of primary dates, hoping to have hitlery alone on the ballots (successfully in MI), then push for “all the votes to be counted”. Since that is not flying too well, they are depending on dirt attacks on osama over the next few weeks to take him down a few pegs, then re-vote MI and FL, to pick up more popular votes for their Plan B.

Think_b4_speaking on March 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Perhaps this is explained by neither one being a rational actor?

It’s like a game of chicken, if neither of them backs off, there will be a splendid crash at the convention and neither Clinton nor Obama can be certain they will win that fight. However, they don’t want to swerve early unless their opponent does likewise, which makes a mutual agreement to revote the least risky and most predictable move left at this point from an overall perspective.

Remember, this is the Democrats, they only double down the stakes when the polls or their base are strongly behind them.

Cyrus on March 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM

The only truly fair way to settle this is via fistfights on the convention floor in Denver.

Little Boomer on March 14, 2008 at 1:09 PM

“The only truly fair way to settle this is via fistfights on the convention floor in Denver.”

I disagree. Pool cues and broken bottles would be REALLY fair.

NoDonkey on March 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM

I don’t get it…What am I missing here?
posted at 10:03 am on March 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

Take a step back and look and look at the bigger picture.

Then take another few steps back and look at the much bigger picture.

The answer lies in understanding Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has had a lust for power her entire life. Witness:
- her Wellesley thesis,
- her passionate involvement in the Nixon impeachment process
- her high-powered law career,
- her sitting on the board of directors of powerful companies, and
- her drive for “Supreme Executive Power”

She first sought “Supreme Executive Power” through the use of her husband. Remember how one of the first things she did as First Lady was try to drive health care reform?

When “we the people” rose up and refused to allow her to wield “Supreme Executive Power” as First Lady, she was forced to step back, but she probably still tried to run the show behind the scenes. At worst, Bill was a puppet President with Hillary pulling the strings. At best, Hillary still had significant influence behind closed doors. That’s probably been the arrangement of their marriage: he gets to sleep with whoever he wants; she gets the power. It’s no surprise that she’s running on her “experience” – she thinks she already ran the Presidency for 8 years. It’s no surprise that she says she can “hit the ground running day 1”. She wants to be only the second president to serve four terms in office.

She probably began strategizing and game planning for her rightful ownership of “Supreme Executive Power” shortly after her (whoops! I mean Bill’s!) 1996 re-election. She’s been strategizing for well over a decade.

What do you think was the most embarrassing and humiliating time of Hillary’s entire life?

I’d say it was the public disclosure of the lurid details of Bill’s “inappropriate” relationship with Monica and his subsequent impeachment trial. It wasn’t the infidelity that bothered Hillary (she’d been accepting that for years), it was that Bill got caught and this time (thanks only to the DNA evidence on a blue dress) they couldn’t just use character assassination to make it go away.

It is supremely ironic how the impeachment Hillary fought for (Richard Nixon’s) was never an “official” impeachment (because Nixon resigned before he was tried by the Senate), while the impeachment she fought against (Bill Clinton’s) was official, even though he was acquitted by the Senate. The impeachment wasn’t about the sex, it was about the high crimes committed during the cover-up: perjury and obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton, while acquitted by the Senate, was disbarred. He was guilty of those high crimes…no matter what your definition of “is” is.

Hillary stood by her man and fought for his senate acquittal for the same reason she always put up with his years of infidelity…the same reason she did her best to destroy the lives of those who made his infidelity public…the reason?…her own lust for power.

Bill’s downfall would have been her downfall. Bill’s removal from office would have been her removal from office. Bill was a sexual predator elected to the highest position of power in this country. But Hillary was OK with that because of the power it brought to her.

Again, she is notorious for destroying the lives of women who told the truth about Bill’s sexual conquests (at least one of those being a rape). Now she is ready to destroy the life of a man in who would stand in the way to her coronation as President and “Supreme Executive Power”.

Most of you think I’m talking about Obama, but it’s bigger than that… Read on…

Step back to 1996 and the beginnings of the Hillary Clinton for President game plan. She knew that she couldn’t win in 2000…She had too little “official” experience, and Al Gore was the presumptive Democrat nominee. So, Hillary ran for Senator to have a position from which to run for President later. Hillary and Bill did very little to help Gore in 2000, and probably actually wanted him to lose, to pave the way for a 2004 run by Hillary. This was duly noted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

What Hillary didn’t expect was 9/11/2001 and how that would impact the 2004 race. Everyone knows this country doesn’t voluntary change its Commander-in-Chief during wartime. In late 2003, with the country still at war, Hillary was smart enough not to run against the incumbent president. She helped John Kerry go up against Bush, and she started focusing on her 2008 run. In 2004, Bush got a greater percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat has gotten since 1964 (LBJ). If you discount 1964 (because the country wanted stability in the wake of the JFK assassination), you have to go all the way back to FDR to find a Democrat who got a greater percentage of the popular vote than George W. Bush got in 2004.

Back to Hillary…the “smartest woman in the world” formulated a very detailed game plan for the 2008 election.

As part of her 2008 game plan, Hillary needed to select a VP. Someone without too much experience (so they couldn’t compete against her) but who could, by way of identity politics, help her win the general election. She chose Barack Obama. More about that later.

Her game plan included both offense and defense. Think about who the Democrats consider their biggest enemies, and don’t limit yourself to just thinking about individual people… also think about groups of people and media organizations. Remember that the Clintons know the best defense is a good offense. They learned a long time ago that your opponent has a difficult time responding when your fist is in their face. They went into attack mode very early. Case in point: the “hit piece” interview with Bill Clinton on Fox. Go back to the Hot Air “Vent” archives from September 2006 and lookup “Slick Willie’s Day of Rage”. That interview was not a “Fox hit-piece” on Clinton, it was a “Clinton hit-piece” on Fox.

Hillary’s ego did not allow her to even consider a challenge for the Democrat nomination. She was, after all, “the inevitable candidate”. In her mind, she had been the de facto President for 8 years, so who would have the gall to run against her?

She didn’t think her challenge would be winning the Democrat nomination, she thought it would be winning the general election. She needed to find a Republican candidate that she knew she could beat, and ensure that that candidate got the Republican nomination.

Hillary picked John McCain as “THE CHOSEN ONE”. Now, before you LOL, hear me out…

McCain, the “maverick”, would be liked enough by Democrats that they could actually consider voting for him in a Republican primary if they were given a strong reason not to vote in the Democrat primary.

McCain, the “maverick”, was disliked by groups that are Hillary’s “enemies”: pro-lifers, strict constructionists, evangelicals, those against amnesty, etc.

A win for McCain would be a win for Hillary and a defeat for Hillary’s enemies. She would have the last laugh on the people she believes engaged in “the politics of personal destruction” to impeach her husband. And oh, by the way, McCain is one of those who voted “Guilty” on the Bill Clinton impeachment. Crushing John McCain in the process of winning the presidency would be cathartic for Hillary.

McCain would need some help to win the Republican nomination, and helping him was part of Hillary’s game plan. The Clintons still yield significant power within the DNC and the MSM. To ensure McCain got the Republican nomination, she needed him to get a big delegate lead early, and then use the MSM to incessantly repeat the mantra “McCain is the presumptive nominee”. That part of her strategy worked to a “t”.

She honestly thought that she wouldn’t need the delegates from FL and MI in order to secure the nomination, so they became part of her plan. I don’t know why MI was chosen, but I do know why FL was chosen. Moonbats are still angry about FL 2000, and still believe that Bush “stole” the election and was “selected, not elected”. Human nature is such that if a person truly believes that someone else “stole” something from them, it’s morally justifiable to “steal” it back. I don’t endorse that thought-process, but it is human nature. In the eyes of Hillary and her “inner circle”, stealing the 2008 election by using Florida was brilliant and morally justifiable.

They moved the FL and MI primaries up, said the Democrat primary wouldn’t count, and got a significant number of Democrats to vote in the Republican primary (exit polls showed that fully 20% of the voters in the FL Republican primary weren’t Republicans). McCain won the primary, and most of McCain’s competitors dropped out shortly thereafter. The MSM media did their job well. The MSM told Florida voters that one of McCain’s top competitors had “left the state” on the weekend before the primary (implying an acknowledgement of defeat), when that was not the truth – the candidate was still campaigning in Florida but the press refused to cover it and lied saying he had left Florida. The “McCain is the presumptive nominee” mantra was repeated ad nauseam. Other candidates were told that it was “mathematically impossible” to win when that was not the truth…neither Romney nor Huckabee had to get to 1191, they just had to prevent McCain from reaching 1191 and it would go to a brokered convention. A debate originally scheduled for February 28th was cancelled because McCain didn’t want to face an opponent 1-on-1 before the March 4th primaries. Voter suppression at its finest (or most despicable). Hillary succeeded in helping John McCain win the Republican nomination.

What Hillary didn’t count on was her protégé challenging her for the nomination. Her intense anger towards Obama stems from the fact that she “made” him – she helped propel him to his senate seat by giving him a speaking slot at the 2004 convention. I watched both 2004 conventions on TV and I distinctly remember the commentators all reading their talking points about how Barack was the “rising star” in the Democrat party. The game plan was for him to win the senate seat in 2004 and then be Hillary’s VP in 2008. The game plan was perfect: First woman President, first black Vice-President. What could go wrong?

What went wrong is that George Soros and some other big players decided they liked Obama better than Hillary. Maybe it’s because of Hillary’s stand on the war. Hillary, ever with an eye on running for President, had no choice but to support the current Commander-in-Chief for the first year or two after 9/11/2001. Barack has the luxury of not having been Senator until 2004, so he never had to vote in favor of the use of military force. Hillary’s biggest opposition in the Democrat party has come from the anti-war far-left.

But whatever the reason, some “big dogs” decided that they wanted Obama, not Hillary, as President. Obama, in his own lust for power, was only too happy to accept the offer.

It’s been a cat fight ever since. Early on, Hillary rounded up certain “black leaders” (which is really a stupid expression…who are the “white leaders”? Why do Democrats think dark-skinned people need similarly dark-skinned “leaders” to lead them?) She got them to say things like, “I want Barack to be President…in 2016”. So, “black” people were told that they could support Barack, but only after he went to the back of the bus and let “Miss Hillary” sit up front for eight years.

There is a great civil war going on in the Democrat party – people are being forced to choose sides, and many of the superdelgates caught in the middle feel like they are on a stretching rack, being pulled in two directions.

Obama was being groomed to be Hillary’s protégé. Now he wants to “steal” the Presidency from her. She is furious at him. Her “offer” of the VP to him is nothing new, and is laughable to general public because she is making that offer publicly when she is in second place! It’s possible that her making the offer publicly may be her way of saying to Barack, “This is your last warning. Get behind me as my VP or else.” It’s sad to say, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Hillary is preparing to move from mere character assassination to Vince Foster action. If that happens, expect her to blame it on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that couldn’t stand the idea of a “black” president and ended the life of the Democrat front-runner.

Hillary will do whatever has to be done for her to win the Democrat nomination. The end justifies the means. For now, it means doing whatever it takes to seat delegates from FL and MI in her favor. She’d like to just seat them as-is, but there is no way that will happen because Hillary cheated in both of those primaries. In MI she was the only Dem candidate who didn’t remove their name from the ballot. In FL she campaigned in the state, even after promising not to. Democrats as a whole would not support seating the delegates as-is.

So she goes for plan B (do-overs in FL & MI) because she needs those delegates in order to have a shot at winning the nomination. She is trying to setup rules that allow her to cheat once again and manipulate the outcome in her favor. Obama supports the do-overs because 1) he doesn’t want to be a party to “suppressing the vote” in those states and 2) he thinks that he can win them, and have “moral” victories by winning states Hillary previously claimed she had won.

The problem with any do-over plan is that it allows anyone who voted in the Republican primary, and subsequently changed party affiliation to Democrat, to now vote a second time in the Democrat do-over. I’ve raised that issue before. A large number of Democrats crossed over and voted in the Republican primary and could now vote a second time in a Democrat-only do-over. Republicans who change their party affiliation now to Democrat could vote a second time in a Democrat-only do-over.

Voting twice is illegal.

The only way to ensure that people don’t get a second vote is to wipe the slate clean on both sides and hold do-over elections for both parties. While any do-over is not fair (the FL & MI results impacted the race in ways that can’t just be “undone” by a “do-over”), a Democrat-only do-over would be a travesty to our electoral process and a travesty to the rule of law. I’m no attorney, but wasn’t the 2000 election Supreme Court decision based on “equal access”? How can it be equal if some voters get to vote twice (in both Republican and Democrat primaries) and have twice the impact on the 2008 Presidential election?

Don’t interpret this as an ulterior motive, but I must point out the truth that if anyone other than McCain won a do-over in Florida, that could re-open the Republican race and force a brokered convention.

You can interpret the following as an ulterior motive if you so desire, but I believe that if McCain remains the nominee, Hillary’s game plan is ready to defeat him in November…

The Clintons used the power of the IRS to audit their enemies. They used the power of the FBI to get files on their enemies. They could dig up dirt on anyone they wanted to. All of us have skeletons in the closet. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one wants their sins broadcast to the world. Remember how bitter Hillary is about Bill’s impeachment. Remember how McCain voted “Guilty” on that impeachment.

I believe Hillary has dirt on McCain.

What kind of dirt? I believe she has some irrefutable evidence of an affair between John McCain and Vicki Iseman.

Take note of the following:
Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman”, but then later was forced (by the blue dress DNA evidence) to admit that, “I did have a relationship that was inappropriate”.

McCain said that he and Vicki Iseman did not have a “romantic” relationship. I’m sure that if asked the same question, without any other convicting evidence, Eliot Spitzer would have responded that he and “Kristen” did not have a “romantic” relationship.

No one ever asked McCain if his relationship was “inappropriate”, only if it was “romantic”. McCain is parsing words as well as Bill Clinton ever did. If we don’t ask him now if his relationship with Vicki was “inappropriate”, the Democrats will use it to their advantage in October. If Hillary is successful in getting the Democrat nomination, count on this being her “October surprise” for McCain. At least some of McCain’s flights on Paxson’s plane were alone with Vicki, with no one else on board except the pilots. But move along, there’s nothing to see here…

It would be the sweetest of revenge for Hillary Clinton. Win the Presidency and take down a man who once voted against her and her husband in the impeachment trial.

Red Pill on March 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM

Probably both candidates would have an interest in a do-over in Michigan. Hillary can legitimately claim that she got 55% of the votes in Michigan, but no delegates; Obama can legitimately claim that he couldn’t get delegates without being on the ballot. Both of them stand to gain by a do-over: Obama can gain delegates by being on the ballot, and Hillary can legitimize whatever delegates she wins, since winning an unopposed election looks unfair. Michigan has a Democrat governor, who doesn’t want to disenfranchise her supporters.

Florida is more difficult, because both candidates were on the ballot in January, so there are real results. Hillary won Florida–why would she want to risk a weaker result in a do-over primary, when she could argue disenfranchisement to the Credentials Committee? Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, can just say “rules are rules”, and not risk Hillary reducing his lead by a do-over primary which he is bound to lose, if previous results are any indication. Also, why would a Republican Governor in a state with a Republican-controlled legislature want to pay to resolve a dispute among Democrats?

But if Obama wins the nomination without any delegates from Florida (the biggest swing state), will Hillary’s supporters there get behind Obama, when their votes didn’t count in the primary? Or would this concede 27 electoral votes to McCain?

So what must Howard Dean think of the situation he created with his disqualification rules? Think of his comments after losing Iowa in 2004: YEEEAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH !

Steve Z on March 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Red Pill on March 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM

Understand your opponent, or you will lose.

Red Pill on March 17, 2008 at 6:11 AM