home
Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST
I believe strongly that if Michigan is re-run, it will look almost exactly like Ohio.  Thus it's probably not in Obama's interest to re-run either state, as the whole world will be focused on the results and they are unlikely to look good.  In terms of demographics, Hillary obviously has few states as favorable as Florida.

The problem is that the party who refuses a reasonable settlement of the issue ends up looking much worse in the court of public opinion.  Obama mostly has the high ground right now with his "rules are rules" position, but that goes away if he refuses to take a deal that would eliminate the disenfranchisement problem.  And of course, Hillary just builds on her presumed lead in MI and FL the more she expresses how happy she would be to re-vote and let the people have their say.

I think I agree with BTD in that, while Jeralyn is right that there is no real "reason" to have a do-over in FL, it's still necessary to do so in the name of legitimacy.  An overriding concern in this process ought to be reaching a result that everyone can live with, if we can get there in a reasonable way.  That's one reason why all of our arcane rules and bizarre state election structures are such a bad idea - any time a consensus nominee doesn't emerge on their own, you don't have any sort of transparent process.  We might as well go back to the smoke-filled room when no one expected fairness.

If BTD is correct and I believe he was (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
Fla voters and Party officials did nothing wrong and Dean Brazil have no right to not seat their delegates other than a clear conflict and abuse of the National Committee.  Any remedy must address this wrong.

[ Parent ]
A friend has a close connection (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by litigatormom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
to someone in the Democratic state party, and from her I've always had the impression that the Republican dominated legislature pushed the Dems into the early primary date, and that they were simply unable to push it back.  Then the DNC said, have a separate Dem primary at a later date. The local party said, we can't, if we do it on the same day as the GOP the state pays, if we do it another day we have to pay.  The DNC said tough nuggies.  They could have offered to pay for at least part of a later primary.  But nooooo.

I'm sure there are other stories floating around about exactly how we got into this mess, but the only one I hear over and over is "we didn't think it would matter."

[ Parent ]

the repubs put the primary date (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:09 PM EST
on a bill that required a paper trail from all votes on machines.  To go on record against such a bill in a state such as FL would have been political suicide.

So, yes, they forced the dems into voting, then when the dems filed a lawsuit, an obnoxious repub judge basically slapped them down like bad monkeys.

Of course, the key out of this is the DNC rules, which seem to be selectively enforced.  They allow a state party to be excused from the pre-super Tuesday stipulation if they make all effort to adhere to the law.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#24)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:24:27 PM EST
Florida voters obviously did nothing wrong.  But the point is that the "legitimacy" of seating FL is not something you or I get to unilaterally determine.  The people who object are not just a couple cranks; there's a widespread expectation that the FL primary isn't going to count.

Now, if Obama refuses to accept a do-over, and the DNC shrugs its shoulders and seats the FL delegates because it has no other choice, people are going to be a lot less sympathetic to his concerns.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft