http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
The New Republic reports that Michigan "plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days."Said the source: "They want to play. They know how to do caucuses. That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."
"Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary."
UPDATE: A comment on dKos says that ABC news is reporting that Clinton won't accept a caucus. Sorry no link.
UPDATE by Lowell: Rasmussen Reports has a new poll that has Michigan tied, 41% Clinton-41% Obama.
No more details than this at this time. I guess one of the big questions is who should pay for the new caucus.
Clinton is trying to pull a Bush - her idea of compromise is all her way or else
so give her the "or else" - do not seat anyone from Michigan, and she has no change of closing within 100 delegates
Her behavior is going to make many Democrats sit through the general election if she wins.
I'm a supporter of Barack Obama, but I believe strongly that we shouldn't expect Hillary to take an action that will effectively spike her candidacy without evidence that to do otherwise will ALSO spike her candidacy.
Basically, we need to make the political costs of opposing a caucus higher than the costs of agreeing to a caucus. We need to demonstrate that she is MORE likely to lose the nomination by opposing this answer than accepting it.
I noticed that I failed to qualify my response. Thanks for pointing this out :)
I would agree with your position if this was the only thing that Hillary was doing. If people want to play hardball, fine with me.
What is bothering me is her refusal to hold caucuses together with her NAFTA-gate shell game, together with her campaigning for McCain, together with her turning terrorist attacks into the topic of the campaign.
All together creates a picture of an egocentric candidate who is willing to bring down the party if she doesn't become the nominee. And if she does become the nominee, she would have hurt herself gravely against McCain.
And I also agree with your conclusion. :)
I'm glad we're on the same page with how to "fix" this, but I am a little more sanguine about our Party than most, perhaps. I believe that no matter how long it takes the Party will unity behind the nominee, and neither side will take their ball and go home. And I believe the "you're tearing the party apart" argument is a cop-out at this stage in the game. It is like telling the voters of Pennsylvania "the unity of Democratic Party is more important than your vote," and that is a sure-fire way to depress turnout in Pennsylvania in the General.
Just how I see it.
I wish both camps would stop playing games. For the sake of the party, the outlines of what a deal should accomplish are clear to me:
Each candidate should have an equal and adequate opportunity to make their case to voters in each state. It seems up to the state parties to decide how they want to measure the will of their electorate (primary, caucus or flipped coin) and them let the chips fall where they may.
But it is clear that there are two things that will not work, and the respective camps should stop pushing either concept:
1. Simply not counting them. This was okay before we knew that the primary process would not produce a candidate, but now that it won't, counting these states is essential.
2. Using the existing results. Michigan, where only Clinton appeared on the ballot, is obviously meaningless. And there are enough question about the extent to which each candidate participated in arguably sub rosa campaigning in Florida (Clinton's fundraising visits, Obama's television ads as part of a national campaign), even though neither technically broke the rules, that in a close election the results need more bulletproof credibility.
Screw FL, they need to revote, and foot the bill themselves.
Same with Michigan!
Anyway, the only way to resolve this mess is to split the delegates 50/50 between Obama and Clinton in MI and FL. It' s the only real resolution to this since no one is going to agree to pay for this mess.
Split 'em in half and seat each elegation in Denver.
Clinton will not agree to a caucus in FL. The Republican Governor and legislature in FL has said they will not agree to pay for a new primary. And again the DNC is broke and they do not have the funds to pay for this nor should they.
Senator Nelson, according to Newsweek, has come up with a plan to raise soft money to pay for the primary, which would be totally conducted by mail. But as you can see from the attached article, this is fraught with problems. The biggest problem with this is that there is a law in Florida which prohibits a mail in election from occuring to pick a nominee.
So, if all of the above is out of the question, the party either sticks to its guns and refuses to seat the delagates from FL and MI, or, it is determined by a huge credentials fight at the Democratic Convention. Then the whole convention turns into a huge mess with half the convention going home angry, or walking out for that mater, and sits on their hands in the fall.
A 50/50 split seems like a better alternaive to me.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119901