Bringing Michigan and Florida to the Convention

So, this is where it looks like it stands now. Correct me if I'm wrong:

  • Obama's campaign wants to see Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention.
  • Clinton's campaign wants to see Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention.
  • Howard Dean wants the states to figure out how this can be done according to the rules
  • Suggestions have been made on how to seat those delegates
    • They could be seated as pledged at the previous contests
      • Clinton prefers this, as it gives her an advantage, since they voting wasn't fair
      • Howard Dean has ruled it out completely, so it is off the negotiation table
    • There could be revoting
      • It's not clear how much either campaign supports this, but it's likely Clinton would take this as a second choice
      • Dean has said the DNC will not pay for expensive revoting
      • Who would pay has not been determined
    • The delegates could simply be split 50/50
      • CON: The state's contribution to the process would be largely meaningless
      • PRO: The delegates would still get to participate in the convention, which is a big deal for the individuals involved.
      • Clinton would gain no real benefit from this, my guess is her surrogates will argue against it.
      • I do not know how Obama feels about it
    • There could be caucuses
      • Cheaper than revoting (although I don't know who would pay for them. Probably the states)
      • Replacing a primary with a caucus in a case like this has precident - it happened with Washington D.C. when they bucked the primary timing rules and lost their delegates. They were able to reseat.
      • Clinton may not favor this option, because she's not done well in the caucuses
      • Obama may favor this, as he has done well in caucuses

Did I miss anything?

It looks to me like Clinton is going to have trouble squeezing an advantage out of this. There are too many suggestions that sound like better compromises than straight re-voting, which nobode appears prepared to pay for.

Technorati : , , , , , ,


Julie said...

The Republican governor of Florida said he (the state) would pay for a revote, but I don't know if that would require agreement from the state congress, or if such agreement would be likely. I also don't know if "revote" means strictly a revote, or if it could mean a caucus instead. I don't think the idea of a caucus would go over too well there, honestly.

Dr. Momentum said...

I don't have the link handy, but I'm pretty sure the FL legislature said they don't have the money for another election (that's better and more specific wording).

Caucuases are cheaper, though. If they don't like caucuses, they're going to have to scrape up the money. And then pay again in November.

I can't imagine taxpayers will like that. Suddenly, a caucus might be more palatable.

Imagine the Republicans in FL. Maybe they want to see Hillary gain on Obama, but enough to pay cash money? And there's no guarantee a vote will even help her much.

Julie said...

Well, just knowing that the Republicans want the revote (or caucus) in hopes of boosting Clinton's delegate count would probably influence its outcome. And you would think that Clinton's campaign would hate this idea.

Oh, right - that's why they wanted to keep the original results in the first place. Heh.

Julie said...

...and meanwhile, the governor looks like a good guy just for floating the idea. Blech.

Mike said...

Florida I can almost understand, since both candidates were on the ballot. But I'm amazed Hillary Clinton can look people in the eye and advocate using Michigan's results knowing that Barack Obama wasn't even on the ballot. That's highly distasteful, to say the least.