June 3 Michigan re-vote is VERY possible

Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:22 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
While the idea of Florica re-vote seems to be fading, there is a lot of momentum among Michigan Democrats for a June 3 re-vote, according to informed sources in the state. There are a couple of hurdles, including who would pay for the primary (100% Clinton donors or 50-50 split between Clinton and Obama donors; the preference of state Democrats). The state would pass a law that would appropriate the money to run this special primary election; not a mail-in, but a full bore in-person 100% open primary. The state, in turn, would be reimbursed by the Democratic Party or potentially other entities or even seeing if it's possible for donors to contribute to the state directly. Everyone seems to be on board in the state Democratic world of Michigan, including the governor, the Dingells, Carl Levin, the Kilpatricks and the U.A.W. For those that follow Michigan Democratic politics closely, you'll know getting all those folks in agreement isn't easy.

Also, there appears to be very little GOP resistance in the state legis. (or even the McCain campaign) from allowing this to happen. So, barring some major objection by the Obama folks (who are being briefed on this plan later today), the possibility of a Michigan re-vote on June 3 is very high. The only thing that could stop this primary logistically is if the state party is told, legally, they can't raise the large soft money contributions they would need to raise in order to come up with the $10-12 million.

All of this needs to be agreed to (including by the state legislature) in the next 10-14 days.

Ok, Florida, is the ball now in your court?

EMAIL THIS

Comments

A re-vote is okay as long as it is 100% funded by the democratic party, and allows both candidtaes time to campaign whithout infringing on another states primary. Its okay too if Michigan and Florida were forced to obide by the rules of the democratic party and sit this one out. Who do they think they are?

Ed, California (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:18 PM)

I think Florida should count the delegates as is, and any unassigned delegates should be split.
Plus, Clinton never campaigned there, but she did go there for a fundraiser, and she was there the night of the election.
BUT, many people from Florida say that Obama had ads running there, when she did not. And both names were on the ballot.
Seems the simplest and least costly way to me to solve the FL problem. They HAVE to be counted somehow, or I fear serious trouble in NOV.
His name was there, he ran ads, her name was there, she didn't run ads. Seems like a compromise to me.
Michigan sounds good.....

suzy, san francisco (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:19 PM)

I have a real problem with the present plans for a re-vote. What about Independent and cross-over Republican voters? I'm sure there were both in the initial voting process. If these people are left out this time, it is not legal. I am a cross-over Republican and I would be hopping mad if I were excluded the second time around. What are we? Second class citizens/

Ruby, Canal Winchester, OH (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:19 PM)

of course McCain would not object to a wide-open primary, since the republicans are done voting, they'll come out and vote for Clinton to either make her the nominee (a dream for repubs), or at least push republicans into a highly contentious convention.

memoryaid (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:22 PM)

I honestly cannot understand the theory of allowing a re-vote of any kind. These states agreed to the dates set by the party. Then they moved the dates up in an effort to be "more relevant" to the primary process. Then they were penalized for breaking the rules and now everyone is trying to schedule a re-vote that puts them right where they wanted to be in the first place, "more relevant".

There is nothing democratic about what is going on here and any "re-do" is just changing the rules again. Just give them each 50% of the Michigan and Florida delegates and move on.

Save tens of millions of dollars and accomplish what you intended to accomplish in the first place, make the primaries in these states "irrelevant" The delegates get seated and neither candidate benefits.

What could be more fair?

Joe Kelly, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:22 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=767355