Should there be re-voting in Florida and Michigan? And who does it benefit?
The feeling out there now appears to be that any involvement of these two states would help Senator Clinton. She's got the deficit of delegates and more states are if she feels she's found a new voice with more negative campaigning then this means more voter on which to try out her new message.
But what sort of arguments will compel people to agree that Florida and Michigan should re-vote?
Clearly, the idea of counting every vote resonates with Democrats. On the surface it seems like the only fair approach, and that's how it will be argued (I expect).
There is a "rules are rules" counterargument, but also the argument that any re-voting is giving those state parties another chance that other people don't get. It could be argued that they had their chance to stop their party from moving the primary, and they made their choice. Now that the consequences have come due, some people feel it was a bad choice. Why should we be sympathetic now when they didn't make more of an effort back then? If they get to re-vote, why not let other early states re-vote, too? You can always argue that we know more now than we did then.
Who will be arguing for and against re-voting, and what will the most compelling argument be? And what will the Democratic Party decide?