Florida And Michigan (Redux)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If at the end of the primary season Obama and Hillary are (essentially) tied in delegates Florida and Michigan should hold new primaries, not caucuses, with the popular vote loser in those two states promising to endorse the winner...

Anything else will fracture the party...Obama and Hillary have a lot of passionate supporters... If they feel they were jobbed, some won't vote, some won't contribute, some won't work hard for the party, and yes, some will become a suicide voter and vote Republican or third party out of spite...

This is what happened in 1980 after the acrimonious campaign between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter in 1976 even though Jimmy Carter had a clear and convinicing delegate lead before the Convention...John Anderson got seven percent of the vote, mostly from disaffected Democrats, and made Reagan's win look much larger than it was...

Exit polls showed that about seventy percent of Democrats supported both of them...That seems good on the surface but that still leaves a lot of unhappy Democrats if their candidate doesn't get the nomination...

[SoFlaJet]

1. I heard the end of a story on the news this morning

saying something about the possibility of us down here maybe voting again in June-anybody hear anything about that?

[Kittycat]

2. All I read is that FL refused again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Suspect The Only Obstacle Is Cost

You're talking millions of dollars...

[SoFlaJet]

4. maybe we should all buy our own bottles of

purple ink

[DrDan]

5. well . . . as one of the unhappy Florida D's, why should I vote for the party's nominee?

They have elected to ignore my voice, so I am at a loss as to why I should support their nominee.

I will not be voting R. and not 3rd party, but will vote for the D of my choice.

[Henryman]

7. DrDan...your logic lost me.

First, do you have any consideration of the reasons your state was stripped of it's delegate votes?
Secondly, if your choice for the Democratic Candidate is not the one on the GE ballot, how is writing in your choice going to accomplish anything? Just wondering.

[DrDan]

11. do I have any consideration of the reasons?

Do you mean - do I support the disenfranchisement? Absolutely not. Ones vote should never under any circumstance be taken away.

How will it accomplish anything? It won't. But to vote according to my choice, versus the party's choice is the path I will follow. I owe nothing to this party that has decided that my vote was not wanted.

[Henryman]

13. DrDan, you say "never under any circumstance."

Hypothetically: What if the Democratic leadership in my state decided that the only name they are going to print on the Democratic primary ballot is Mr. Joe Shmoe and there are no write-ins? Then, the National Democratic leadership says they have to play by the rules and they must have all qualified candidates on the ballot. But the state Democratic leadership sticks to their guns and to Mr. Shmoe. What would be fair then?

I understand your frustration, but don't you think there HAS to be rules and consequences?

[DrDan]

15. no - of course that would not be fair . . .

and I agree there needs to be rules and consequences . . . and I believe in following rules, or suffering the consequences.

In this case, it seems to me, these rules and subsequent consequences are dynamic. And I never did see, on either side, a real effort to come to a mutually satisfying solution. Both sides are just being stubborn - and both are willing to allow the voters to pay the consequences. Both sides were willing to screw the voters. This is when I separate from the rules.

[Krashkopf]

8. No, your State Party, and the Michigan State Party, elected to INVALIDATE your voice . . .

by "cutting in line" ahead of the Super Tuesday states.

The votes you and Michigan cast are "null and void," because ALL of the candidate agreed not to campaign there, and then one of them BROKE that agreement, campaigned, and ran unopposed in, those states, and NOW says that the votes should count.

That clearly would be UNFAIR to the other candidate, who HONORED the agreement and did not compete for votes in FL and MI.

The ONLY fair way to seat Michigan and Florida convention delegates (which SHOULD be done) is to allow the STATE PARTIES to pay for, and hold, new fully constested, primaries or caucuses.

[DrDan]

9. I blame both sides . . . both are power-grabbing opportunists

neither was willing to work out a compromise - hence the voters got screwed.

The sad part is, there are many here on DU - to include you - who are willing to stand by and allow this disenfranchisement. This is a cornerstone of Democratic Party principles.

Would you so willingly stand by and watch women and blacks have their votes taken away. I think so - if the DNC said it was appropriate.

[557188]

12. They would if it helped Obama

[Henryman]

14. "if it helped Obama".....

take your generalizations and go back to 5th grade!

Try posting something rational or constructive!

[booksenkatz]

6. They didn't want my opinion back when the slate was different

so they can't have my opinion now, with the current slate of folks that has been picked for me. Edwards, my original choice, is out now. The dynamics have all changed. They didn't want my Edwards vote back when it could've counted. So they don't get a do-over just because all of a sudden they think we matter. We only matter because it's suddenly convenient for them.

And what about the Dems who crossed over to vote Repub? I know many of them. Will they get a do-over?

What a mess. It's fairer to write off this disastrous year and hope that next time things will be better. Counting the results of the pathetic "primary" we had, or having a do-over -- either choice is absolutely unfair, immoral and irresponsible.

[geek tragedy]

10. How about if we seat FL's delegates and but refuse to seat

FL's superdelegates?