I would be surprised if Michigan Govenor Jennifer Granholm will agree to it, since the day after Hillary decided to keep her name on the Michigan ballot, Governor Granholm endorsed Hillary.

Hillary will beat the caucus idea to death as will Granholm. No way MI holds a caucus. Also, Hillary has attacked the FL redo idea. Says all was fair because the Republicans forced the statewide primary in January. Delegates from FL should be seated per the primary results. Obama is not going to beat the Clinton's on inside dirty spin politics.

What people seem to be forgetting is that the DNC committees are not likely to simply roll over and accept the Michigan and Florida delegations as they are in violation of the rules that were agreed to by all candidates before this all began. That would set an extremely dangerous precedent that the rules could be subject to change in the middle of a contest and open up all sorts of conflicts in the future. In addition, accepting what Michigan and Florida did would create pure havoc with the primary schedule in 2012 with states trying to leapfrog one another in the schedule.

Clinton campaign rhetoric on this is nothing but posturing for negotiations. They know very well they can't change the rules now and they will eventually go along with re-votes within the rules because otherwise they would look like they are afraid to contest Obama in a fair fight for these two states.

LOL. Lawsuit. Can you say Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore. or should I say Clinton v. Obama. or maybe Clinton v. DNC. Either way this is so much fun. I hope Hillary wins WY and hold MS within single digits. Doesn't matter to me, I'm just waiting for the winner take all contest in PR. Hasta la vista baby.

There will not be a caucus in Michigan. Why not? Because it does not advance Hillary's goals, that's why not.

Whatever happens, it is a great demonstration to the rest of the country tat Democrats are not fit to run a popsicle stand at a county fair, let alone the country. What a bunch of incompetent boobs

This is going to the courts, folks. Tighten your seatbelts.

Obama would be foolish to agree to any change from status quo. He cannot afford to have Hillary win FL and MI in a re-do, and give more credence to Hillary's argument to super-delegates that she is the only one who can win the big states.

Hillary will not agree to any 50-50 delegate allocation (or anything that does not give her a disproportionate advantage), because it does nothing for her. Her only plausible path to nomination is to close the delegate gap to as little as possible, and then convince the SDs that her overall strengths (big states, appeal to whites, Latinos, Jews etc.) trump the small disadvantage in delegates.

Whatever happens, it is a great demonstration to the rest of the country tat Democrats are not fit to run a popsicle stand at a county fair, let alone the country.

It does seem like the Republican Party's approach of cutting the Florida and Michigan delegations in half was a better way to approach the whole thing. It's funny you don't hear much dissension from those two states about that.

And the Republican Party doesn't have superdelegates which is definitely a better way to do it.

So yes, I would agree, the Republicans have run a better primary process.

Larkin:

The reason for the lack of dissension from MI and FL Republicans is because the race is finished. All the delegates (not just the truncated numbers) will be seated at the Rep convention. Because there is no impact on the nomination, there will be no objection at all.

There was never a situation when MI and FL delegates would not have been seated, even for the Democrats. If the nomination would have been clinched by anyone before the convention without MI/FL delegates, seating them would not be an issue at all. However, seating them now has a material impact on the nomination. If Obama agrees to a do-over (or any arrangement that dilutes his delegate lead), he gives Clinton more ammunition to make her case to SDs that she is more electable (especially if she continues to trounce him in PA and other battleground staes), and he will be shut out. If Hillary agrees to any 50-50 arrangement, she weakens her own case, and given her sense of entitlement, she is not going to give up.

That is why I see only two scenarios: (1) a scorched-earth battle till Denver, or (2) Obama gives up and accepts a VP slot, to minimize the damage to the party (and does his best to mollify the black voting base).

Penalizing the delegates was a dumb idea for both parties. Ultimately, the punishment for the transgression is borne by the state's voters, who had no role in breaking the rules. The party officers and elected officials who actually moved the primaries up get off scot-free.

As sam suggests, this is the ONLY possible scenario under which all the offending state delegations would not be fully seated: the nomination is in doubt, and those delegates could have a material effect on the outcome.

Larkin ~ I recall the candidates "agreeing" not to campaign or buy advertising in Michigan or Florida at the pleading of the DNC. I don't recall them specifically signing on to delegate penalties. The DNC further requested candidates apply to withdraw their names from the Michigan ballot (because there was still time to do so); all but Clinton and Gravel complied.

I find it extremely doubtful Michigan will hold a caucus after already holding a primary.