Tonight, the San Antonio Spurs and the Los Angeles Lakers continued their epic battle in game 4 of this best of 7 western conference championship.  

Home court advantage has proved important in this contest as the Lakers won the first two games in Los Angeles, while the teams have split the two games hosted in San Antonio.  

While the players compete on the court, lawyers for both teams will appear this week before the NBA rules committee which is scheduled to determine which team should receive home court advantage in the event the matchup goes to game 7.  

Under the NBA's rules, home court advantage goes to the team with the best regular season record, which in this case is Los Angeles.  However,  lawyers for San Antonio contend that relying only on the regular season record unfairly ignores the legitimate results of the NBA's 7 game preseason.  Thus, because San Antonio's preseason record (5-2) was two games better than Los Angeles' (3-4), San Antonio claims that its total regular and preseason record is better than Los Angeles - and therefore it should be given home court advantage.  

I solved the whole thing. You can thank me later, don't worry.

With everyone carrying on about the mess caused by the Michigan and Florida legislatures' impasse regarding how to seat their unwelcome delegates, the answer is staring us right in the face:

Let residents of Michigan vote in Pennsylvania, and let residents of Florida vote in North Carolina.

I'm sure you have some questions, because you look like the sort of troublemaker who would dare question my wisdom. Let me ask them for you and answer them in a Rumsfeldian kinda way, below the fold.

Since no one else appears to be concerned about the Michigan and Florida Revote problems I guess its down to simple old me to put out my two cents on this matter. Perhaps Kos and others are avoiding the subject since it taints their pristine view of Obama, maybe it's just not important because they consider it counterproductive to their drive to get Obama elected. But it is important for one simple reason that should be giving Kos sleepless nights. The fact that we need to support everyone's vote in this process.

Yes, Michigan and Florida's legislatures did a bonehead move trying to upset the applecart during the middle of an election cycle. It would have been addressed easier in an off year. But I see the point they were trying to make. I, myself, reside in New Hampshire and don't quite agree with them. But I do understand their displeasure over the schedule. Even though I do not think "denying" them a chance to revote is in our party's best interest.

The Democratic Party’s Presidential Primary; the Bowl Championship Series; two contests, each attempting to decide one winner.  One is fatally flawed.  The other?  Worse.  What’s your take?  More after the fold.

I frequently tell my friends that the Devil is in the details.  I was reading this washington post article and buried in there was this little gem:

Voters would have to sign a statement that they hadn't voted in the Jan. 15 GOP primary to be eligible to vote on June 3. That would effectively keep away from the polls Democratic voters most of them non-Clinton supporters who crossed over to vote in the GOP primary because Clinton was the only major candidate on the Democratic ballot.

As Florida and Michigan edge closer to delegate reselection compromises, the Clinton campaign should see nothing but bad news ahead. With a pledged delegate deficit that even her campaign views as insurmountable, and a superdelegate lead that appears to be narrowing by the day, the primary rationale for Clinton’s continued candidacy is uncertainty.

It is uncertainty that has prevented Clinton from being forced from the race by her party. It is uncertainty that fuels the main stream media’s coverage – the only justification for describing a race that Obama cannot lose as a virtual tie. Why, the Clinton campaign argues, should Hillary concede defeat in a race filled with so much uncertainty?

But as the race moves into its final stages, and as the Michigan and Florida sideshow is resolved, the race moves ever closer to that one thing the Clinton campaign cannot afford to accept: certainty.

Dan Gelber is the Minority Leader of the Florida House of Representatives.

According to his blog:

Today, Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman declared officially dead the revote by mail idea. While it was the only option available that would have given Florida Democrats an avenue to host a selection process that was in compliance with DNC rules, it lacked the consensus required to allow it to happen.

From CNN:

In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon, state party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said, "We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

[...]

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't."

Hey Hillary supporters: I want to know is where your heart would be if there is no Michigan revote. I am sincerely curious how you see things. (Poll response or comments welcome.)

As most kossacks know, the Florida dems have proposed a revote that is a combination of vote by mail and regional voting.  They are currently asking for input on their plan before the end of the day today.  the link for feedback is at:

http://www.fladems.com/...

More after the fold

My wife and I have been discussing if there is any fair way to handle the Michigan delegates.  Should the delegates be seated? Ignored?  Or is letting the state vote again the right answer?  To answer these questions about fairness, I think the most important question needs to be answered, who gets to vote?

Note, I will not be discussing Florida.  I feel like Michigan's situation is unique enough to consider by itself.

Among the proposed methods for handling Michigan and Florida without alienating their valued voters are an even delegate split and a mail-in vote. At this point, it looks to be a long shot, as the Florida House has unanimously rejected Bill Nelson's mail-in vote plan. That may be for the better, because the plan for the mail-in vote had fraud danger written all over it.

Recently there has been increasing discussion, sparked initially by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, about the Clinton campaign's real motives behind pushing for a revote in Florida and Michigan. The likelihood of only modest pledged delegate gains from the two contests suggests that Clinton is, instead, aiming for the superdelegates.

Combined, Michigan and Florida have 54 superdelegates, all of whom were stripped of their status when their states were stripped of their pledged delegates. Among them, Hillary Clinton is expected to have substantially more supporters than Obama, the product of longtime friendships and her advocacy in favor of seating each delegation.

The Obama campaign should argue forcefully that these superdelegates should not be seated in Denver, regardless of what happens with revotes in the state. To be sure, the people of Florida and Michigan had no say in the decision of their states to move their primaries forward. While the original votes in January clearly cannot be counted, a revote does seem to be a reasonable remedy, and one that seems likely to be pursued.

This is interesting.  Not sure what it all means but definitely an interesting wrinkle.  The comments on the CNN entry seem to lean towards this being some sort of nod to Obama.

The last few days have seen a furious media push/putsch to seat delegates from FL and MI.  It seems clear that not only the media emphasis on this subject, but also the proposed remedies, are a gift-wrapped life preserver tossed to the floundering Clinton campaign.  The media insists that we can't simply abide by the original DNC decision, and there's little buzz over proposals to split the delegates equally or to re-run caucuses.  Instead, the "solution" trumpeted for this suddenly "urgent problem" is to mail new ballots to all FL & MI Democrats.  

The mail-in do-over is not only friendly to Hillary's over-60 demographic (and less bother for her under-enthused supporters), it has the additional advantage of being tough on Obama's student supporters (who may not be at the home or school address they last voted from).  But perhaps the biggest gift for Hillary in this basket is the chance to deny Michigan Independents the chance to vote this time around.  

Unlike in Florida, Michigan's primary on January 15 was open to Independent voters.  But I haven't heard any talk about mailing Democratic ballots to every unaffiliated voter in the Great Lakes State - I'm only hearing about the imperative to make sure Michigan's Democrats have their votes counted.

I've been thinking about a way to settle this Michaigan/Florida mess.I think maybe, I have a solution. I think that Michigan and Florida should do a re-vote and their pledged delegates be seated.

But there should be some penalty for breaking party rules and causing all this ruckus.

Their super delegates should be taken away and not be given a vote.

That way, the people's vote is validated. But Florida and Michigan do not have the ability to sway the final tally with super delegate votes, which could or could not reflect the will of the people.

While pondering the dilema that is Florida and Michigan redux, I came up with a novel idea. As opposed to taking Carville's bait and agreeing to some kind of revote, there may be another card for the Obama camp to play.

James Carville went on CNN yesterday and faced off against David Wilhelm calling for a revote in MI an FL. He dismissed any of the arguments against the cost of a revote. He offered $15 million from backers on the Clinton side to help fund the elections and challenged the Obama side to pony up and get it done.

Wilhelm was startled and speechless. Carville was having a great time daring the Obama camp to move off their stalling tactics and do the right thing for the Democratic Party. It was a very entertaining exchange, and it clearly exposes the Obama camp's goal of running out the clock and not seating Florida and Michigan.

I have to be honest,  I was a bit surprised several days ago when word came out that Clinton opposed caucuses in FL and MI, with the reasoning that they'd already voted.  Sure, I understand that caucuses are not her thing, but at least she could have said she'd support something more like a primary.

Now it appears that Obama opposes revotes as well.  I find this even more difficult to believe.  Links and excerpts below the fold