I've seen estimates for the cost of a Florida mail-in primary of just $5 million. I assume a Michigan caucus would cost somewhat less.

The money will have to be found somewhere. There's no real option but to re-run the contests given that neither candidate is likely to drop out before the bitter end.

I just have to comment on this. There are at least 5 permutations on each of the above five options. So let me throw out just one. You guys can think of some more.

One option could be a 125-85 split of the Florida delegation for Clinton in return for a MI caucus. As I said this is just one option on the theme of the five Jim presented above. The two camps can surely negotiate some more I hope. Or if they can't reach some settlement than how in the beep beep beep are they going to negotiate a trade agreement (NAFTA) with anyone.

I have an alternative that hasn't been considered, but could work. Cut Florida's delegates in half, like the Republicans did, and seat them as is. Since only one remaining candidate was even on the ballot in Michigan, redo with a caucus (this is now apparently in the works). That way, Obama gets an potential, though not guaranteed, advantage in MI, Clinton gets an advantage in FL, and everybody is represented at the convention. It would be hard for the loser to complain that the winner had an unfair advantage with this solution.

Mantis,

That would be a solution, yes. I can assure you that Hillary is not going to agree to it.

Here's the Hillary case: She knows that she is going to be behind in the delegate count, and also that Obama is not going to clinch the nomination based on pledged delegates.

To make a strong case for the SDs to set aside the pledged delegate lead, she has to give them some rationale (just like any lawyer, who has to present an alternative scenario to convince a jury that their client did not commit the crime, somebody else did). It is easier to make the case if she is, say, 80 delegates behind than, say, 280 delegates behind. That is why she has to do everything to close the delegate gap. SDs are not going to override a 250-300 delegate gap, but are more likely to consider other factors if the gap is 50-100. What she is hoping for is (1) the gap is small, and (2) she takes the lead in popular votes.

Therefore, in regards to MI anf FL, she will only agree to a situation which enables her to close the gap to a insignificant level. Otherwise, there is no point in her continuing the campaign.

The converse is true for Obama. If he allows her to close the delegate gap to an insignificant level, he might as well give up his campaign. Because Hillary is smart and ruthless enough to bulldoze her way if he gives her an opening, and she will not be deterred by a few dozen pledged delegates. (I can assure you that her case - of low delegate gap, lead in popular vote, electability by keeping Hispanic, older white women, and Jewish votes together, winning large battleground states such as PA, OH, and FL, winning the large states after February - will resonate with lots of SDs.) Obama has to be very careful for the next few weeks, otherwise he is about to be steam-rolled.

Quite frankly, I sit back and have to laugh at the dilemma the Dems have got themselves into. First I have to reflect on what the hot head, Howard Dean, did by causing the disenfranchisement of voters from from FL and MI in the first place. Can you imagine if he had won the 2004 election and had gotten that phone call at 3:00 in the morning?

Secondly, the Dems' proportional selection of delegates has resulted in the Dean disenfranchisement being the issue it is. This is just typical of idealistic liberals who don't think about the consequences of their actions. This is why they should not be put in charge of anything!

So to me, the mess over FL and MI is a hoot to watch. Going to cost the party millions to rectify and the candidates in campaign costs. HA HA HA.

Jim,

The re-do is the only viable option. Here's why.

If you go to the DNC website you will see that the winner still needs 2025 of the 4048 authorized delegates. With 366 delegates excluded (MI and FL), there are only 3682 delegates available. Obama of Hillary would need a margin of at least 366 over the other to reach the magic number of 2025. This is virtually impossible at this point of the campaign. It appears Dean didn't get the rules changed to allow a majority of seated delegates. Dean has painted himslf into a corner. In todays papers Dean said how difficult it is now to get rules changed as each candidate won't agree to anything that might threaten their standing.

This is why Dean and Senator Nelson of Florida are working so hard to get a revote. The DNC and Florida Dems don't have the money. Nelson is reported to be seeking "soft money" to finance a mail ballot primary (currently not legal in Florida).

I don't think the Hillary forces will agree. She will probably hold her numbers in Florida (the Jewish vote is desperately afraid of Obama)but will lose her numbers in Michigan with the heavy black vote in Detroit.

There is no reason for any compromise on rules for either candidate until the convention. Neither will cede the nomination to each other. Neither will accept the second slot on a unity ticket. It will all happen at the convention with a big fight before the Credentials Committee on seating the MI and FL delegations. There will be fireworks.

I don't think there will be any resolution until then and it is possible the entire convention will come to a screeching halt because of it. It is a perfect storm of Clinton ambition, entitlement and stubborness; racial tensions; and a race so close there is no room for compromise.

I don't think Dean and Nelson can pull off a re-do. They may be able to parry the Clintons' maneuvers before the Credentials Committee by having offered a viable re-do of the primary with the Clintons turning it down. It might help their case when the lawyers get invoved.

It's not going to be pretty for the Dems, but it will be good theater for the rest of us. As you pointed out, Dean didn't think this one through very well.

Typical of Democrats.