Over 1/2 Million MORE Democrats Voted in Florida Than Took Part in all the Dem Caucuses Combined

[Tom Rinaldo]

1,734,456 Democrats voted in this year's Florida Democratic Primary on January 29th. So far this election season the Democratic Party has held delegate awarding caucuses in 12 States. 1,176,579 Democrats participated in all of those Democratic caucuses combined. Which means that a total of 557,877 MORE Democrats took part in the Florida Primary alone, than took part in all of the Democratic caucuses held in 2008.

592,261 Democratic voters also took part in the Michigan Primary. If you combine that number with the total number of Florida Democratic Primary voters; One million one hundred fifty thousand, one hundred and thirty eight MORE Democrats participated in the Florida and Michigan primaries than the combined participation registered in the Democratic caucuses held in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Utah, North Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, Washington, and Alaska.

That means nearly twice as many Democrats voted in the Democratic primaries held in Michigan and Florida as the cumulative total of Democrats who participated in all twelve Democratic caucuses held so far in 2008. Those twelve Democratic caucus States will be sending 461 pledged delegates to represent them at the 2008 Democratic Convention. As matters stand, 2,326,717 Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan will have no pledged delegates representing them at the Democratic National Convention.

It may well all be by the rules, but there is something seriously undemocratic about a nominating process that grants 461 delegates to 1,176,579 Democratic caucus goers while completely disenfranchising 2,326,717 Democratic Primary voters.

Here are the individual participation totals:

Iowa: 236,000
Nevada: 117,559
Alaska: 8,621
Colorado: 120,001
Idaho: 21,234
Kansas: 37,089
Minnesota: 206,559
New Mexico: 153,299
North Dakota: 19,102
Nebraska: 12,445
Maine: 44,670
Washington: 200,000***

Michigan: 592,261
Florida: 1,734,456

SOURCE: United States Elections Project
2008 Presidential Primary Turnout Rates
Last updated Feb. 13, 2008
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

***SOURCE WASHINGTON STATE: New York Times
Obama Wins Maine, Giving Him 4 Victories in Weekend
By KATE ZERNIKE and JOHN SULLIVAN
Published: February 10, 2008
"...In Washington, the Democratic party reported record-breaking numbers of caucus goers, with early totals suggesting turnout would be nearly be nearly double what it was in 2004 — itself a record year — when 100,000 Democrats caucused".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10cnd-primary.html?ei=5088&en=f606c621da1c30c3&ex=1360299600&adxnnl=1&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1203301923-jes+xxMTiw+rRCKpEGl24Q

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Didn't HIllary win by 300,000 votes too?

[jackson_dem]

2. Yes while Obama's wins in the caucuses came by how many votes?

The rethugs flipped Missouri for Obama and "independents" flipped four states for Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. The Florida Results:

Hillary Rodham Clinton 857,208 49.7% Delegates stripped by party
Barack Obama 569,041 33.0
John Edwards 248,604 14.4
Joseph R. Biden Jr. 15,429 0.9
Bill Richardson 14,782 0.9
Dennis J. Kucinich 9,537 0.6
Christopher J. Dodd 5,402 0.3
Mike Gravel 5,261 0.3

[babylonsister]

3. Now imagine if it was a legitimate primary where someone deserved

to win. That would have been awesome.

[jackson_dem]

6. Alaska: 8,621

Florida: 1.7 million

Let's silence Florida!

[goldcanyonaz]

9. That's a hell of a lot of people to silence.

[babylonsister]

13. I wouldn't blame any of the candidates, but wouldn't suddenly

make it legal either. Life does suck sometimes. How 'bout those 1,000,000 ind. voters in CA who were disenfranchised, or all the votes that weren't counted in NY? And the list goes on.

[Mika]

15. Huh? They both agreed to disenfranchise Fl and MI.

Who would vote for candidates that agreed to disenfranchise millions? Oh.. wait..

[dogman]

19. Disenfranchisement is wrong.

No matter who or why. Life really sucked for the last eight years because of voter disenfranchisement. It used to bother Democrats but not so much if it favors them.

[joshcryer]

55. Count their fucking votes?

How hard is this to understand.

Fucking Bush v Gore. Does anyone remember that? I fucking do.

[Moochy]

8. Imagine all the People

The Ends Justifies The Means, dontcha know!

Think of all those millions of people robbed by the arch villains who always are picking on poor little Florida! Hillary is standing up for them! :sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

47. It is unreal; and we're supposed to trust her to represent us? nt

[joshcryer]

54. Actually, I find it unlikely normal voters understood that they would be disenfranchised.

This is FL after all. They continue to allow that shit to happen countless times.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. Hillary wants to change rules for Texas next, thumbs nose at rules

And sorry Florida, other states followed the rules, and we know that your leading democrats
there were thumbing their noses at the DNC and the rest of the country.

One of your reps even laughed about it, said he hoped it blew the process wide open.

[NJSecularist]

5. Get over it. Hillary agreed to the ground rules. The delegates won't be seated.

And you do need independents to win a general election.

[David Zephyr]

16. It's really a shame how Hillary agreed from the beginning to ignore so many voters in Florida.

That's a shame.

[Mika]

17. Obama too.

Backstabbers. Both of them. Who would vote for either?

[joshcryer]

58. Well, both Hillary and Obama wanted to seat FL. Obama is the only one changing his tune here.

Hillary always wanted to seat FL.

[joshcryer]

57. Obama did her one up, he ignored the voters in MI completely.

At least Hillary was kind enough to keep her name on the ballot there, even though it probably cost her in Iowa because she didn't placate those early states with pandering tactics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. If nothing else I point this out because

I have seen a great deal of teeth gnashing over how horribly undemocratic the role of Super Delegates is. I have seen a great deal of teeth gnashing over how disenfranchising it would be for a candidate who won a slim plurality less pledged delegates to possibly win the nomination with the votes of super delegates. Well all of this is in the rules.

It is also in the rules for caucus goers to pick delegates to the National Democratic Convention with their votes weighted up to 10 times heavier than those of primary voters, because across the board only small fractions of the Democratic base participate in caucuses relative to primaries. The same link I used to get turnout numbers for caucuses does a statistical comparison of participation levels between them and primaries by the way. Here it is again:
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

There are appeals built into the rules to deal with situations like Florida and Michigan, but I am commenting on something broader. I am commenting about all of the complaints that mostly come from Obama supporters about how inherently undemocratic it would be - leaving "rules" aside, to allow Super Delegates to be the swing vote in this nominating process. Leaving "rules" aside, I am pointing out some other undemocratic features of this nomination process.

[David Zephyr]

25. Michigan has to have a revote because of the missing names on the ballot.

1.) Michigan has to have a revote because of the missing names on the ballot. There's no other solution which means the rules are the rules.

2.) Florida could possibly follow the GOP's lead who punished that state, too and cut their number of delegates down (The GOP was 50%, but they encouraged the candidates to campaign which was the opposite in Florida). I'd say let Florida have 25% of their alloted delegates and then break them up by the votes cast. Otherwise, the rules are the rules and they get no votes.

Bottom line: Michigan and Florida are really in a pickle and no amount of manipulation to get an unfair edge by Clinton's supporters will fly. It just is not going to happen. And the more they work this, the worse it makes them look with the voters in the other states.

Howard Dean and the Democratic Party are not going to let the two states that broke the rules choose the nominee of the Party. Aint' going to happen.

[tandem5]

53. I agree, all this discussion about what is fair for the candidates and yet there...

seem to be few advocates for the voters. There is much outrage over the super delegates, a small body of officials that might decide over the "will" of the electorate, but where is the outrage toward the small body, the Florida state legislature, that did decide for millions to move up the date for their election? Where is the outrage over the few DNC officials that did decide for the millions that all the delegates and not the default half should be discounted?

[rodeodance]

80. She asked the DNC to reconsider. So what.

[cbayer]

7. Apples and oranges, I think.

Aren't caucuses smaller groups that represent bigger groups?

[Yael]

22. Shhhhhhhh

You will ruin the "we are owed the nomination because <insert whatever nonsense reason here> party".

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. No.

They are smaller groups empowered to decide for larger groups. They rarely are truly representative of the larger pool of voters because the process is more limiting than secret ballot elections held over a 12 hour or longer period of time. Not to mention the aspects of horse trading for viability and trading votes etc. that can take place in caucuses. Polling organizations know that well which is why they have so much trouble accurately predicting caucus results.

[cbayer]

44. But, but, but.... I thought your post was all about the actual number of people being respresented?

[cbayer]

46. Sounds like every level of our democratic structure.

From city council to the Senate. That's how it works. It's representative government. I like it better than any other system i have seen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. I think secret ballots are great. I think polling booths open before and after work are great

I think the Democratic Party stands for increasing voter turn out, not suppressing the vote by sharply restricting the voting hours, by forcing voters to remain present on location for hours at a cacus in order to make their voice count, or by allowing crowds of advocates for one candidate to potentially get in the face of and intimidate supporters of another.

I thought one person one vote was the standard Democrats strove for, not one person one vote IF your candidate has 15% of the attendees supporting him or her, otherwise you are forced to give your vote to someone else or leave. I thought Democrats are moving away from power broker deals like the ones cut in smokey rooms AND in caucuses where candidates make mutual pacts to temporarily throw their vote support to one another.

I like elections. I like them better than any other system I have seen.

[KellyW]

10. In Washington...2004....when 100,000 Democrats caucused

This number is often cited and it always bugs me. 2004 Democrats caucused in WA had LESS THAN 100,000

[David Zephyr]

11. Soooo, what's your point?

[Moochy]

12. I call shenanigans on the HRC supporters selling this BS

This is pure shenanigans by her morally bankrupt supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. This is pure fact

It is a list of data. We can argue over the implications of this data, but I did precious little of that in my OP. If an accurate list of facts is shenanigans and morally bankrupt, have fun dealing with the Republicans if Obama becomes our nominee.

[Moochy]

23. It's not a simple trick, its just a trick!

you typed with your thumbs : "have fun dealing with the Republicans if Obama becomes our nominee."

I guess we cant count on your vote then?

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I will gladly support Obama, and I will fight for him to win the General Election

But I am not naive about what is and is not morally bankrupt shenanigans. I know the difference between a fact based discussion and dirty tricks. If you think my post was the former I think you are in for a rude awakening. I assumed you are supporting Obama because you blasted Clinton supporters in your post, that's all.

You can check my posting history if you want, but I do not bash Obama.

[Moochy]

33. I'm blasting those who tout these "facts"

...as evidence that Clinton is entitled to those votes. One possible conclusion to the facts presented, and many HRC supporters are trying to make that case.

What's clear to me is that those PARTY LEADERS in FLORIDA who voted to move the date of the primary are snakes.

[Tarc]

43. Yes they are, but that's not the point

That's a lot of voters to outright snub, regardless of what their party did to them. This whole angle of the primaries is far more important to deal with than the superdelegate wrangling, IMO.

[cbayer]

50. Loved the book, by the way.

Sorry, just figured out who your avatar is and, I mean it, that book was profound for me.

That being said, this whole FLA thing is a lot more complicated than i had ever imagined. There are many groups with responsibility for this. It is an outstanding example how everything can really go wrong when power is the issue.

[nomorewhopper]

14. yet when you look how many D vs. R voters came out in Fla, and compare it to other primarys.....

Dems have been showing up at the polls at overwhelming numbers this election cycle. In every state, the number of Democrats who show up at hte polls is far greater than republicans.

in florida, that was not the case.

record numbers of ppl showed up to vote on hte D side, but not in overwhelming numbers. in fact, (i'm not looking at the numbers now) but it may have been even less than the # of republicans who voted.

compare this to virginia, or any other state where MASSIVE numbers of dems voted compared to repubs. clearly, many stayed home.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Democratic turnout increased by more than a million votes over 2004

And the Republican Race was at a pretty interesting stage during the Florida primary. It was Goodbye Rudy Tuesday among other things.

[Yael]

27. Yep

R -- 1,920,350
D -- 1,684,390

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=FL&ref=ipb

[nomorewhopper]

36. One of the only state to have LESS Dems than Reps come to the polls!

Why did this happen? How come 2 Million Dems didn't come to vote?

Um, becuase we told them that their votes wouldn't count. The people who came to the polls were people with extra time on their hands. Elderly people. The family people, the young, the people with busy lives stated home. In droves.

[Yael]

38. And renters who don't care about property tax amendments

Why does everyone hate renters? :cry:

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. 712,845 Democrats voted in the 2004 Florida Primary

1,734,456 voted in the 2008 Democratic Florida Primary. That's a million more Democratic voters in 2008 than in 2004 dispite the fact that Barack Obama was the only candidate who broadcast campaign ads into Florida prior to Florida voting. About 550.000 Florida Democrats voted in the 2000 Democratic Primary. 2000 was also the first year that more Republicans voted in the Florida Primary than Democrats did (2004 was uncontested on the Republican side). No matter how you look at it, Democrats turned out in massive numbers to vote in Florida in 2008.

Regarding Republicans, in addition to the 2008 Florida Republican Primary being hotly contested Republican voters knew that half of their delegates would count, so maybe they were a little more motivated to participate. But no group of Democratic Florida voters were either more or less motivated to vote in 2008 than another. The circumstances didn't suppress voter participation from supporters of one candidate over another, and Florida Democratic voters turned out in massive record breaking numbers none the less.

[KoKo]

83. Those numbers are interesting, Tom. Thanks for checking that out.

As to the caucuses you mention "upthread"....I wonder if the DNC isn't going to get alot of angry blowback about them. They seem an odd system and definitely intimidating for the shy, the elderly and those who are working. I had no idea how many States held caucuses as opposed to open voting until this year. But then we haven't had a contested Primary in so long...I guess the caucus system didn't get the exposure it would have. We always just accepted that Iowa had caucuses and most candidates didn't get too far past Iowa and NH.

[ProSense]

21. Watch Hillary claiming she'll win caucus states and

the nomination by Feb 5.

[Cha]

24. Now she's scrambling

for organization and wants the delegates where all the candidates' names weren't on the ballot.

Pathetic thy name is hilary.

[Yael]

28. I get it now!! Only states before 2/5 count

Ha!

[Cha]

30. Yeah, the whole thing went

numb after Super Tues and the new kid was still on the block.

[Bread and Circus]

29. You know what's great about this thread?

A: you reminded me through your sillyness and rationalization to put you on ignore.

Florida was a non-election.

What kind of real Democracy has elections where the candidates can't actually campaign?

A: none.

End of story.

If you want Florida trial to count, let them campaign there and have a revote by primary or caucus.

End of story.

Anything else is stealing an election.

[avrdream]

65. You put TOM on ignore?

Wow, that is as bad as putting Nance on ignore. Tom only ever writes intelligently and passionately about the things he believes in. He never bashes whatsoever.

You just showed your true colors if you put him on ignore.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. This is a sad statement

Do you how many DU posters I have on ignore? Zero. Do you consider me an Obama basher? One of my recent posts today backed Obama against an unfair smear campaign being waged against him.

Your unwillingness to engage enough to even read what friendly adversaries within the Democratic Party have to day (I frequently have good things to say about Obama even though he is not my first choice for President) does not reflect well on a candidate who claims to represent hope and inclusion, and an ability to unify Americans across Party lines.

[Straight Shooter]

72. You put Tom Rinaldo on ignore?

:wtf:

[stevietheman]

34. ... in a primary where the voters knew in advance that the delegates wouldn't count. n/t

n/t

[UALRBSofL]

40. Your assuming florida voters new there vote wouldn't count

I never got a letter, flyer or anything else from the DNC or the FDP. I got an absentee ballot which had all the candidates on it but it didn't state our votes didn't count. So, how would you know the voters in florida knew there vote didn't count?

[stevietheman]

42. So when somebody breaks a law they don't know about, they are...

absolved of that?

Ignorance is no excuse.

[Independent-Voter]

67. Sounds like you didn't pay any attention whatsoever to your political process in FL

This was all over the news as it was going down. Face it - you're representatives in FL sold you up a river. Stop bitching, and start paying attention in the future.

[dysfunctional press]

92. You're assuming that the voters of florida are a bunch of morans...

(of course, some of them don't even know how to make a proper contraction out of 'you are', so you may be right about that.)

[Schema Thing]

35. Remember the last two words in: duty, honor, country

and speak no more of Michigan and Florida.

[stahbrett]

37. Quantity does not mean quality or fairness

I can advertise for a big poker game, and tell everyone that it's all pretend - no one loses or wins money. Then afterwards I can tell people that showed up and played that I changed my mind - everything actually counted, and the losers need to pay up, and the winners will get money.

Or I can set up a smaller poker game, where everyone knows it's for real money.

Which poker game is more fair?

[InsultComicDog]

39. More moving the goalposts

Of course caucuses don't get the kind of turnout that primaries do. It takes a lot more time out of one's day to participate in a caucus. It's a ridiculous comparison.

[mkultra]

41. answer seems oddly simple

They had choices then and they have choices now.


A re-vote is the fairest option for all.

[aquarius dawning]

71. a revote? Why? because you don't like the results of the last vote?

That's inane.

[mkultra]

88. then the only solution is to not seat them

follow the rules or choose a fair medium. I know being an HRC supporter makes fairness a tough concept though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Well, at least that would be more fair than holding a caucus now instead

It would also cost a lot of money that Florida's Demcoratic Party doesn't exactly have lying around - the State paid for the Primary.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

45. I believe it is time for a random anecdote

I remember when I was a kid and my brother would cheat at monopoly it would really piss me off! And, my mom would say, just be the bigger person, when people cheat or try to cheat, it just means they're insecure. . . .

hmmmm . . .

[tandem5]

61. And I suppose, in this "random" offering, which is so oddly apt to this situation

or, at the very least, as some believe it should be, that monopoly money and/or the odd assorted inanimate accessories which go along with earning a victory are American voters?

[high density]

48. That would be great if the state party had not screwed the voters

and caused the national party to castrate their delegates.

[George_Bonanza]

49. Millions "voted" for dictators as well

Sheer numbers count for nothing under suspect circumstances. Plus, the Republican turnout was higher; don't tell me that that's not abnormal.

[joshcryer]

56. Are you seriously going to stand behind that ridiculous strawman?

These people voted, they weren't coerced into voting the way they did. Well, maybe they were in the caucus states where campaigning is *allowed* within the polling building, unlike in primaries where it is completely *illegal.*

I could imagine forced coercion there, definitely.

[tandem5]

59. "Sheer numbers count for nothing under suspect circumstances."

ah flashbacks to Florida 2000.

[Auntie Bush]

51. Kick and excellent post as usual Tom.

[eridani]

52. If people want to start the 2012 primary on Jan 22, 2009, fuckem, sez I

You have to draw the line somewhere with all this have to be earlier than anybody else bullshit.

[dugggy]

62. Floriduh & Michigan INSISTED in moving primary dates up in violation

of DNC rules. So now they must abide by the rules of punishment.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES AFTER GAME IS OVER!!!!

[intaglio]

63. Low blow perhaps but have you seen this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2882847

Yes, I do know that it probably unrepresentative of Democratic voters.

[NMMatt]

64. Great... but completely irrelevant

Because the rules that were agreed upon by Hillary were that Florida didn't count where as all the states that you cite did. By completely ignoring the main relevant point over and over you are not making the case, only sounding desperate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Why did Obama spend so much money on his Florida non-campaign?

Capital Eye
Closing the Books on '07: Part IV

As the Center for Responsive Politics analyzes the presidential candidates’ year-end campaign finance reports, Capital Eye is mining the data for observations on the race.

By Lindsay Renick Mayer
February 05, 2008


"Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida—more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state."
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=335

[theHandpuppet]

73. Thank you for this thread

Not that a lot of folks here seem to remember what democracy is supposed to be about.

Voters? who gives a crap about them?

[AtomicKitten]

74. All along knowing it would not count, as per signed agreement of all the candidates.

On edit: Your argument is the same as the wingnuts are making on torture. It is illegal but, gee wiz, we only tortured three and got results!, so, um, therefore, it's okay. Nope.

MI and FL were warned of the consequences of moving up their primaries. All the candidates - including Hillary Clinton - signed an agreement with the DNC regarding the disposition of these states. Bill Nelson has already sued and lost.

You have no case regardless of the caliber of subterfuge you tee up.

[ruggerson]

75. Great post

thanks Tom

[AX10]

76. k/r Regardless of what the Obamanistas say...

this is the truth.

[RoadRage]

77. And just imagine how many MORE democrats would have voted had Obama been

allowed to campaign or even be on the ticket in Michigan.. man, the turnout would have been almost DOUBLE.

[aquarius dawning]

78. Non sequitur. We're talking about Florida here, not Michigan.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. You can't be serious...

...but sure the turnout likely would have been higher still if ALL of the candidates campaigned, as opposed to only Obama having TV campaign ads broadcast inside Florida. Florida Democrats went from a turning out a little over .7 million voters in 2004 to over 1.7 million voters in 2008. No way those numbers would have doubled again

Florida has a large diverse and multi ethnic group of Democratic voters, and it is a more clear cut exampole than Michigan, since all the candidates were on the ballot in Florida. There is no reason to think the results in Florida would have changed much; they closely reflect the results in California later that week even thouh virtually the entire Kennedy clan was out campaigning hard for Obama there.

[RoadRage]

81. Ok.. let's see.. the "ads" were national, hard to pull one state out of a national mix..

second, Obama doesn't garner his huge support from a few TV commercials. He does it when he shows up to arena's full of 15,000 - 20,000 people at a time, and hear him speak about WHY he is the better candidate.

Had he actually had time to campaign, he would have come close, or possibly even beat Hillary - like he's done in several other states.

Yup, she won Florida - just like she's always up in the polls by about 20% - 30% a month or two before the actual primary or caucus. Then Obama comes in, people meet him, see him, get to know him, and Hillary's name recognition advantage disappears quickly - and Obama makes it a race.

Show me one state that 1 year ago had Obama leading? None. He is the underdog... the lesser known.. so until he has the ability to campaign, he loses. Hillary knows this - she wants delegates based on name regontion alone.

That is total BS.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. Let's see, about those "national ads"...

How come only Obama wasn't able to find a way to advertize for his campaign in the places that he needed to without accidently and unfortunately having to broadcast into Florida while doing so? Do you think Edwards and Clinton never thought of buying a National Ad contract like Obama's, or that unlike him, they didn't care if they had to pay more in order to run their ads across America without locking into an arrangement that sent their campaign ads into 6.5 million Florida households after signing a pledge not to campaign inside Florida that defined TV ads as "campaigning"?

Obama had plenty of time to campaign in California and allow voters to "get to know him" there and Clinton soundly defeated him there even with Kennedy Clan and the Governor's wife all pitching in to help him.

If you think by the time voting began in Florida that Obama was some poor relative unknown and that all of Hillary Clinton's "name recognition" came from positive press, we are living on different planets

[robbedvoter]

85. But kerry sez Fla has cooties, so screw them! Who needs Fla in GE?

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. It seems like Florida's voters are paying close attention:

Florida 2008 Presidential Election
Florida: McCain Leads Clinton and Has Bigger Lead Over Obama
Monday, February 18, 2008


"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%. This dynamic is the opposite of what we have found in most other states where Obama typically outperforms Clinton in general election match-ups.

The Florida results for a Clinton-McCain match-up are fairly similar to other battleground states--the race is competitive, Clinton does better among women than men, and McCain leads among unaffiliated voters.

However, the poll contains hints that suggest the controversy over Florida’s convention delegates may be hurting Obama. Most notably, just 55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-one percent (31%) say they would vote for McCain. These results are especially striking given that Obama leads McCain among unaffiliated voters in the state..."

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/florida_2008_presidential_election

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. "55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain."

That is a frightening statistic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. That's Why Anyone Not Wanting To Seat The Delegates, But Claiming Caucuses Are Fair, Are Abolute

hypocrites.

The caucus process is the most unfair and unprofessional thing I've ever seen, as it relates to the integrity of elections. Anyone supporting them as a valid voice of the people would be the world's biggest hypocrites if they had the gall to then claim that the 1.7 million voters from florida didn't in fact let their voice be heard. I think every one on DU should try and work towards ending the caucus process prior to the next primary season. It is a meaningless, highly unrepresentative, and monumentally skewed and inaccurate process. I'm frankly amazed at how many states are allowed to get away with it. It's wayyyyyyyy too much of an opportunity for disenfranchisement to occur, which could then have an impact on the candidate, such as what we've seen here. It is highly likely that without the caucuses, Obama would be behind and probably wouldn't have the momentum he currently enjoys. If he turns out to be the candidate, it will in large part be due to unbelievable flawed in concept caucuses.

[Imagevision]

90. Billary, new game, I win Florida and Michigan fuck what I said earlier!

I win! - I win!

[cd3dem]

91. Obama is only concerned with honoring the votes he has managed to manipulate!

Florida ---Delegates stripped by party

Hillary Rodham Clinton 857,208 49.7%
Barack Obama 569,041 33.0%
John Edwards 248,604 14.4%

Michigan ---Delegates stripped by party

Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,151 55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762 40.0%

The suggestion that Michigan and Florida seat a delegation of 50/50 is not American