MI and FL governors call for their voters to be counted

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
BTW, did anyone catch Obama on the NBC Today show this morning? He rattled off a list of the states he won and the first one he listed was Michigan. I'm not sure if he mispoke or if by some convoluted logic he is trying to claim Michigan even though he wasn't on the ballot. I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he made a mistake.

Edit: I wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy, and I managed to find it on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gqm8sZ6vg

He obviously just made a mistake out of fatigue. Why would you knowingly misspeak, knowing it will end up on Youtube and all the "ballot bowl" news channels?

 

[lupi]

I don't think them having a primary will change much. I think the last delegat total I saw had BHO ahead by 70 something with Hillary leading the vote total. I'm assuming the delegate needed total reflects no FL or MI delegates, so if they were added that 50% line would move up. So even if they did revote the total delegate differential added would probably not be nearly enough to have any meaningfull effect. Unless they manage to get some backroom dealing done now, there is virtually no way either side will have enough delegates to have the nomination before the convention.

I wonder what "rules" they have for that.

 

[Corbett]

The idea of not seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida was agreed upon by all the democrat presdential hopefulls, along with their own party leaders. So I dont see why they should be allowed to change their mind, just because it may help one campaign or another.

Typical politicians though. Do whatever benefits them for the moment.

 

[StageLeft]

They were told before hand their votes were meaningless. They already wasted their time. The rules must not be broken just so that Clinton can have a better shot at not being reamed on pledged delegate counts, which is all this is about. The ONLY reason people want this is to try and get Clinton back in the running, which is a big f-u to Obama supporters. I hope that if the democrats do this and clinton ends up nominated because of it that the democrats lose in 08, which by many accounts they seem to be trying their damndest to do.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The Michigan and Florida primaries were shams because Obama, who played by the DNC's rules and followed the rules, removed his name from the Michigan and Florida ballots.

The only fair solution would be for each state to have "do-over" primaries.

Actually you are mistaken. Obama's name was indeed on the Florida ballots.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Had they actually obeyed the rules, they would be in a powerful position (where they intended) - jumping the gun actually hurt them twice.

Maybe so, but you don't penalize millions of voters for a decision made by a few state party organizers.

This isnt a general election. This is an "in" party election. If the democrats want to fund their own primary that is their decision. If they expect the tax payers to pick it up. Tough luck imo.

 

[PingSpike]

Its pretty easy to win a game if you can change the rules in the middle of it.

Clinton should be lobbying that future clinton votes count for 2 votes instead of 1 vote. It makes about as much sense as retroactively counting votes for a primary that was widely accepted as not mattering earlier by the very people that voted in it and that one candidate wasn't even on the ballet for.

 

[tw1164]

I live in a state (PA) that has a later primary, I often feel that my primary voting doesn't matter. The party's candidates are often decided before the primary day arrives.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: tw1164
I live in a state (PA) that has a later primary, I often feel that my primary voting doesn't matter. The party's candidates are often decided before the primary day arrives.

What is more important to you, the feeling of self importance that your vote will somehow count more based on when you vote or simply doing your civic duty and voting your conscience regardless of when the outcome is determined? I think we know what your answer is.........jealousy is such an ugly emotion often rooted in unrational thought. For example, this year PA might be the deciding factor in the outcome of who is the Democratic Presidential nominee. But oh, to be first!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
They were told before hand their votes were meaningless. They already wasted their time. The rules must not be broken just so that Clinton can have a better shot at not being reamed on pledged delegate counts, which is all this is about. The ONLY reason people want this is to try and get Clinton back in the running, which is a big f-u to Obama supporters. I hope that if the democrats do this and clinton ends up nominated because of it that the democrats lose in 08, which by many accounts they seem to be trying their damndest to do.

I, for one, look forward to the Democrats not doing this and then trying to figure out how Obama's going to win without Florida.

 

[senseamp]

Democrats would be stupid to nominate a guy who did not win Ohio or Florida, seeing how they must win at least one of those.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: tw1164
I live in a state (PA) that has a later primary, I often feel that my primary voting doesn't matter. The party's candidates are often decided before the primary day arrives.

What is more important to you, the feeling of self importance that your vote will somehow count more based on when you vote or simply doing your civic duty and voting your conscience regardless of when the outcome is determined? I think we know what your answer is.........jealousy is such an ugly emotion often rooted in unrational thought. For example, this year PA might be the deciding factor in the outcome of who is the Democratic Presidential nominee. But oh, to be first!

I'm not sure if you addressing me specifically or speaking in broader sense. Nowhere did I state I wouldn't be voting this spring, nor that my vote should weigh more heavily then someone else's. My point was that I can understand how the voters on MI and FL feel. That being said, I don't think the DNC should hold another primary.

On a side note, I would like to see all of the states have the same primary date, but that probably will never happen.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Democrats would be stupid to nominate a guy who did not win Ohio or Florida, seeing how they must win at least one of those.

One last time. Try to see if you get it this time.

The dem base that voted for Hillary will still vote dem in the GE.

The newly excited dems, independents and repubs that voted for Obama will very likely vote for McCain over Hillary or just not show up in the GE.

Which would you rather place your bet on?

The person that is guaranteed the base and only the base and also so reviled by the opposition that turnout on their side will likely increase dramatically

OR

the person that is guaranteed the base (cause they are voting dem no matter who the choice is) plus may be able to bring out voters in droves FOR him, get independent voters to go his way and possibly even some of the younger republican voters as well?

 

[Thump553]

I haven't read this thread, but this is my spin (as an Obama supporter):

-the MI & FL primaries that already occured are tainted. All the candidates (but Hillary)stayed out and honored their pledges to the national DNC not to campaign there. Technically Hillary may have complied with her pledge, but even so, she certainly stretched the line a great deal.

-the MI & FL primaries were tainted because they occured when people were told they wouldn't count. Lots of voters probably stayed home, many others may have cast protest votes.

-the people of MI & FL are entitled to participate in the Dem candidate selection process, they shouldn't be shut out of the convention.

-all "compromise" plans I've heard so far (such as split the delegates 50/50, or Hillary's idea to seat them as selected in the defective primaries) are either BS or patently unfair.

-Odds are, that even after the PA primary, the Dem party and the country is going to need a tie breaker unless the Dem Party relies on the totally unsatisfactory "super delegate" solution. If they do this, they might as well change the name of the party for truth in advertising purposes. Personally I think NAFTA is taking the blame for economic disruption caused by other policies (nonexistent antitrust regulation, tax code promoting relocation to lower wage areas/out of country, etc).

-MI will spotlight the economic issues. Hillary will love this as she can spin her phony renegotiate NAFTA line again, but really it is good for the party and the country to have this issue front and center.

The only realistic situation I see, and one that will comply with DNC rules, is for MI & FL to have do-overs. I highly doubt the cost estimates I've seen floated around-they seem absurdly high ($30M, where most of the staff is volunteer or nominal pay, and the voting premises are free), but if the states are willing to cough up the $ (after all, it was their intentional decision to violate the DNC rules in the first place) I can see asking the Hillary and Obama campaigns for a 50/50 contribution. I'm sure we all wouldn't mind giving up a TV ad or twelve.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: tw1164
-snip-
My point was that I can understand how the voters on MI and FL feel. That being said, I don't think the DNC should hold another primary.

On a side note, I would like to see all of the states have the same primary date, but that probably will never happen.

Yes, I agree.

My state votes even later than yours. Our primary contest is May 6 (IIRC).

Fact of the matter is that there are many states, with many people, whose votes won't count.

After Feb 2nd (the first Super Tuesday that left only McCain & Huchabee in), none of the Repub primaries really counted. After this vote, they sure as heck don't (Huck dropped out).

IMO, this whole FL MI mess reflects extreme stupidity, not to mention an excessively authoritarian & draconian attitude, among the Dem party leaders.

The RNC also punished FL. But they were wise enough to just cut their delegate count in half. By doing so they avoided this whole "but it's not fair that their votes don't count" issue.

Had the DNC the intelligance and wisedom to do similarly, they would have one less messy issue on their hands. Not to mention probrably saving 10's of millions of dollars that would be spent on a re-do.

Fern

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Democrats would be stupid to nominate a guy who did not win Ohio or Florida, seeing how they must win at least one of those.

Disagree. I can see Obama beating McCain in states like Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, etc.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I haven't read this thread, but this is my spin (as an Obama supporter):

-the MI & FL primaries that already occured are tainted. All the candidates (but Hillary)stayed out and honored their pledges to the national DNC not to campaign there. Technically Hillary may have complied with her pledge, but even so, she certainly stretched the line a great deal.

Florida

Clinton 857,208 50%
Obama 569,041 33%
Edwards 248,604 14%
Kucinich 9,537 1%

 

[Thump553]

Lupi:

The pledge was not to campaign or advertize in Florida. Hillary didn't advertise, but (among other things) she had an extremely well-publicized (in advance) rally in Florida on the night of the primary, at which she gave a victory speech-or as close you can get to a victory speech without actually saying victory.

Hillary constantly bent the rules so as to make it appear that she really wanted to appear and represent the Florida voters but the big meanies at the DNC wouldn't let her.

Counting the Florida & Michigan primaries as is would penalize those voters who stayed home because the rules (at the time) made it a beauty contest only.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Lupi:

The pledge was not to campaign or advertize in Florida. Hillary didn't advertise, but (among other things) she had an extremely well-publicized (in advance) rally in Florida on the night of the primary, at which she gave a victory speech-or as close you can get to a victory speech without actually saying victory.

Hillary constantly bent the rules so as to make it appear that she really wanted to appear and represent the Florida voters but the big meanies at the DNC wouldn't let her.

Counting the Florida & Michigan primaries as is would penalize those voters who stayed home because the rules (at the time) made it a beauty contest only.

FYI, Obama actually DID advertise in Florida, breaking that pledge. He ran national commercials on CNN and MSNBC which were obviously seen by viewers in Florida. Text

Who cares if Clinton held a rally after winning the vote there? Voting was already over.

Please tell me how Hillary "bent the rules" in Florida?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Thump553
Lupi:

The pledge was not to campaign or advertize in Florida. Hillary didn't advertise, but (among other things) she had an extremely well-publicized (in advance) rally in Florida on the night of the primary, at which she gave a victory speech-or as close you can get to a victory speech without actually saying victory.

Hillary constantly bent the rules so as to make it appear that she really wanted to appear and represent the Florida voters but the big meanies at the DNC wouldn't let her.

Counting the Florida & Michigan primaries as is would penalize those voters who stayed home because the rules (at the time) made it a beauty contest only.

FYI, Obama actually DID advertise in Florida, breaking that pledge. He ran national commercials on CNN and MSNBC which were obviously seen by viewers in Florida. Text

Who cares if Clinton held a rally after winning the vote there? Voting was already over.

So, it's OK since she only cheated a little bit? oh... OK...

HRC is fvcking scum.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

So, it's OK since she only cheated a little bit? oh... OK...

HRC is fvcking scum.

What about holding a rally AFTER the vote is over is cheating?

I've clearly shown you how Obama DID break the rules by advertising in Florida, and yet you still choose to ignore that and call Hillary the cheater. :roll:

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Many of you are forgetting that polling indicates that most Hillary supporters are of below average education, and intelligence...

Doesn't that explain most of what we're seeing from them here on P&N?

It's more of the case of blue collar workers, older people, white women etc who are supporting Hillary versus the latte drinking Starbucks snobs, driving in their Prius, and typing on their MacBook Pro's supporting Obama.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

...versus the latte drinking Starbucks snobs, driving in their Prius, and typing on their MacBook Pro's supporting Obama.

:laugh: so true

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So, it's OK since she only cheated a little bit? oh... OK...

HRC is fvcking scum.

Oh man... That's another one that's going into sirjonk's bag!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: palehorse74

So, it's OK since she only cheated a little bit? oh... OK...

HRC is fvcking scum.

What about holding a rally AFTER the vote is over is cheating?

I've clearly shown you how Obama DID break the rules by advertising in Florida, and yet you still choose to ignore that and call Hillary the cheater. :roll:

Was she in Florida on the day of their primary? YES or NO?

Was any other candidate in Florida on the day of their primary? YES or NO?

Yes, Hillary is a liar and a cheater.