My View: No New Elections for Florida

I disagree with Big Tent Democrat, Markos and every other Obama supporter on what to do about Florida. (I'm saving Michigan for another post as it's factually different.)

I don't believe that Obama suffered because of the lack of campaigning allowed in Florida. And, if he did, so did Hillary. They had television. Floridians could watch the debates and the nightly news and read the newspapers. They weren't living in a cave.

It's evident from the high turnout in the Florida primary -- 1.7 million Democrats voted in a primary that was not open to Independents-- that Floridian Democrats came out in record numbers. They voted early, voted absentee and voted on their primary day. In all, 4 million voters voted on Jan. 29, 41% of all registered voters. That's a huge percentage for a primary.

Florida Dems didn't willingly hold their primary early, the Republican legislature forced the early date on them. [More...]

The state-run Presidential Preference Primary date is set by the Florida Legislature. In the 2007 legislative session, the Republican Speaker of the House made it a priority to move up the Primary to January, in violation of both Democratic and Republican National Committee Rules. The Legislature passed the bill, which also included the new requirement that all Florida elections have a paper trail starting in 2008. Governor Charlie Crist signed the bill into law in May.

Florida Democrats are outnumbered almost 2 to 1 in the Legislature. They are an extremely hard-working and committed group, but to change a law that the Speaker of the House has made a priority is nearly impossible.

More of what Floridian Democrats were told:

What about the delegate selection process? Why still go through with the process if the DNC isn’t giving Florida any delegates?

Although the DNC has said it will not recognize delegates from Florida, the Party plans to appeal to the eventual Democratic nominee for President to be seated at the Convention. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Chair of the 2008 National Convention, and DNC Chairman Howard Dean both confirmed that this does not minimize the importance and impact of the vote on January 29th. With this in mind, the Party will continue the delegate selection process to elect the actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention and will use the results of the January 29th Presidential Preference Primary to determine the apportionment of those delegates.

Why didn’t the DNC assign hotel rooms to Florida?

We technically have no delegates at this time. However, when the nominee overrules the DNC and restores our delegation, we will have some of the 17,000 hotel rooms assigned to us.

The DNC was wrong to penalize them -- and the state party repeatedly told voters they would try to get the decision overturned and it was important for them to vote. So did elected officials. People listened. Again, they turned out in record numbers.

Florida held a primary, not caucuses. It would be wrong to hold caucuses now in lieu of a primary. Nor do they need a new primary. The voters spoke. Hillary and Obama were both on the ballot. The DNC just needs to count the votes that were cast.

Hillary got 871,000 votes, 49.8% and Obama got 576,000 votes, 32.9%. The Florida delegates should be awarded consistent with those votes. They should be counted. No new elections.

End of story.

< Why Did Clinton Not Fight For Florida And Michigan In 2007? | The Current Delegate Count >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Alvord on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    Florida was a fair election. The candidates competed on a level playing field.

    who is Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:07:19 PM EST
    Clinton had name recognition and a higher national profile.

    What we know... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Alvord on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:17:43 PM EST
    ...is that in an actual election Hillary took Florida.

    no it didn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM EST
    an improper election took place, where the canidates could not campaign.

    Improper election (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:52:26 PM EST
    In the states where I lived, I've never had candidates campaign.  I still voted.  Yup.  I had access to the TV and newspapers.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:00:52 AM EST
    I can't remember a single election in the past 30 years when a single candidate ever came and campaigned in my state. But I can read the newspapers and watch TV (and read tons of information on the internet these days). Anyone who wants information on a candidate would have no trouble finding it. And incidentally, Obama did have ads showing in Florida. So it is even more disingenuous for him to claim he didn't get a chance to campaign. He did more than Hillary did.

    How is that improper (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    They did not campaign. How does that make it improper? Did someone rig the machines? Was there something I wasn't aware of?

    I think you may believe it to be improper because you may not like the results.


    I managed to find his name on my ballot (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:41:24 PM EST
    here in Florida. Leo has a  client who is "apolitical" but despises Bush, is feeling pinched and will vote for either HRC or Obama, but really wanted to vote for Obama (but couldn't because he wasn't registered- I am going to remedy that before November).

    We have TV and radio down here. We know who the candidates are and to suggest otherwise is as insulting and stupid as Mark Penn's statement that Obama hasn't won any significant states.


    Tell your friend not to feel (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    My daughter who had registered as a Democrat and was going to vote for Clinton was told she could not because she did not register before some deadline.

    Not true (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    Don't post unsourced misinformation here. False comments will be deleted.

    Texas poll today: Hillary leads Obama 49% to 41%

    The Austin Statesman today:

    The first publicly available poll of Texas voters was released this morning, and it shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with an eight-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama among likely Democratic voters.

    Commenter The Boss is Gone (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    The poster "Tbe Boss" made 77 comments today.  He turns out to be a poster going by the names "memekiller" and "democratic hot rodder" who has previously been banned from the site.

    The Boss's comments have been removed. If this thread doesn't make sense, it's because of people replying to his comments which no longer appear.

    Memo to this commenter: You are banned from the site for abusing it and disrespecting the comments policy. Stop registering with new names.


    Rasmussen too (none / 0) (#30)
    by Shawn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    ok, so the polls are divided (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    that still makes your statement false. He is leading in some Texas polls, she is leading in others.

    Obama supporter who agrees re Florida (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by GV on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    Isn't it a bit heavy handed to delete any comments you deem "false"?  The question here isn't whether you have the right.  You, of course, do.  But if someone is wrong, point it out.  I'm sure you realize that you might make mistakes with respect to whether something is false.  

    I also think you make an important mistake in your post that I've seen here before.  You write: "I disagree with Big Tent Democrat, Markos and every other Obama supporter on what to do about Florida."  I'm an Obama supporter and agree with you regarding "what to do about Florida."  The mistake here is thinking that some commentators on your site are somehow representative of "Obama supporters."  You've seen a small sliver of Obama's supporters, but you often talk in generalities about Obama's supporters.  You did it here and you're statement is "false."  (I would prefer, of course, that you not delete your own post. ;))


    his post wasn't deleted (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    because I thought it was false, see below, he was a banned commenter who registered with a new user name. And how abused the commente today.

    Didn't say anything about banning (none / 0) (#72)
    by GV on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    You wrote, just a few posts up, "False comments will be deleted."  I then wrote that deleting false comments is heavy handed and if comments are truly false, I think it's better to rebut them.  

    I didn't say anything about banning or whether banning someone in particular was appriopriate.  


    I didn't delete his comment (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    until I discovered he was a banned poster masquerading as someone else. I said false comments would be deleted, but that one wasn't...instead I answered it. It got deleted with all his other comments when I hit the "erase" button for him -- it wiped out his registration and all his comments.

    I think the problem is (none / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    There have been several posts on this subject, and most, if not all of the issues that people have brought up about Hillary re: Florida have been addressed in those posts or in the comments. Addressed Ad Nauseum.

    It's getting to the point of having to convince some posters that the sky is blue. They'll ask for LINKS proving the sky is blue, or some other irrefutable fact (like Obama running ads in Florida); there just is simply not enough time in the day to address the same questions over and over again.

    Do the research, see the other postings, bulk up on what's been said (or at least be a lurker for a few sessions to get the feel of the place before posting). It isn't Jeralyn's or BTD's responsibility to educate you on the background of their arguments, not if they've done it already.

    Anyhow, you're in the same place I was a few weeks ago; I was absolutely SURE of certain facts, until I came here (and a few other places). If people are generous enough to indulge your questions with sources, you're bound to learn faster, but don't hold your breath waiting for J or BTD to educate you after they've written so much already. Peace.


    Sorry to burst your bubble... (none / 0) (#82)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:10:23 PM EST
    But the sky isn't blue.  It just appears blue.

    sorry to burst yours, but (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    blueness is a quality of the light, in terms of its frequency, that strikes your retina. Not a function of the object. The sky is no less blue than any other "blue thing".

    I know (none / 0) (#95)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    I just wanted to be clever and/or annoying and/or argumentative :(

    Uh huh. (none / 0) (#89)
    by GV on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    I've been viewing this blog since for many years.  I suspect I was one of its first loyal readers.  It was one of the first blogs that had good commentary on criminal-law related issues.  I've only started posting recently because of what I see as unfair treatment of Obama and too kind treatment of Hillary. Anyway, this is a longwinded way of saying:  I don't need to hang around here a few weeks to "bulk up on what's been said."  

    As far as your condescending remarks that you were in my place a "few weeks ago" -- oh, how I hope to learn like you! -- I have not once posted anything on here where I claimed to be certain of something.  I'm not a child and I don't come here with the "hope" that someone will "indulge" my questions.  


    Huh? (none / 0) (#105)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:40:58 PM EST
    "I've only started posting recently because of what I see as unfair treatment of Obama and too kind treatment of Hillary."

    This blog is one of the few that IS kind to Hillary. I came here via another blog that said it's deleting it from it's blogroll because it was pro-Hillary. To me that was all the green light that was needed (couldn't find one directly in the search engine, but had to dig for it).

    Hillary supporters really need to SEO their blogs, so searchers can find sites that aren't just hit pieces from Obama types.


    Uh huh, electric boogaloo (none / 0) (#108)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    condescending, I suppose. but your actions speak louder than your words.

    Do your research, GV, cause you've flunked this one.


    Well as I stated before in other posts (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    Obama ads ran in florida.  I did not see any Clinton ads (that does not mean there were none since I am not omnipresent)  just that I saw Obama ads and no Clinton ads.  They both held fund raisers in Fl and Obama even had an Impromptu Press Conference in Tampa.  I am going to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination even though I am not a Democrat because as I have stated in other comments I will vote for what I think is good for America not for any particular party or candidate.

    6 of 15 posts by you. Quit The Boss. You (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    are dominating this conversation. Just chill a little.

    The Boss is Gone (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    See my comment upthread, he's been banned twice and just registers with a new name. His comments under all three names -- more than 100 -- have been deleted.

    Jeralyn, I think your post would be more (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    persuasive w/o the graphic of HRC.

    Also, please review the comments today of Big Boss, as he may fit your definition of "chatterer."  Thanks.

    She won in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:40:20 PM EST
    that's the point.

    The graphic should stay (none / 0) (#47)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    it seems to be the unspoken reason many support this proposal.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Coldblue on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    The Democratic votes cast in 2008 exceeded those cast in 2000 and 2004 combined. The 2008 turnout was 42%, hardly indicative of a disinterested electorate.

    Obama received near as many votes in 2008 as John Kerry did in 2004, so the 'name recognition' argument doesn't wash.

    Seat the Florida delegates

    hmmmmmmmmmmmm, so, after iowa (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    no one had a clue who sen. obama was?

    The Clinton name got Hillary votes
    that she would never had seen if Obama was allowed to campaign in Florida.

    bottom line: florida held a primary, substantial numbers turned out to vote, and there is a result. why should they need to vote again?

    I like your solution (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:37:23 PM EST
    Clearly gets one thing of the checklist. Remember Obama had the big 100% full press coverage Kennedy splash the Monday before Florida election. That was everywhere TV, Radio, print and internet. It dominated the news more than the State of the Union. So, he did not campaign, I don't think holds ground.

    Repeat to the Commenter "The Boss" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    The poster "Tbe Boss" made 77 comments today.  He turns out to be a poster going by the names "memekiller" and "democratic hot rodder" who has previously been banned from the site.

    The Boss's comments have been removed. If this thread doesn't make sense, it's because of people replying to his comments which no longer appear.

    Memo to this commenter: You are banned from the site for abusing it and disrespecting the comments policy. Stop registering with new names.

    What is left to discuss? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    One side want Hillary to win and their proposals reflect that. The other side want Obama to continue his lead and their proposals reflect that.

    The rules as is benefit Obama. The agrument seems to be that for the sake of party unity Obama should allow Hillary to collect questionable delegates. Neither side in going to flinch. You are not going to talk Obama into changing the rules to lose the game.


    Sen. Obama has a problem (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    As people have pointed out here many times, the rules allow the delegates to sit at the convention. The rules say that if the convention decides to sit them, they sit.

    If Sen. Obama wins because he has a slight delegate majority and decides that the FL delegation should not sit at the convention, I think he has a problem in the general.  Sen. Clinton's position is admittedly easier--sitting them helps her in the primary as well as in Florida in the general.

    Saying that if you are the presumptive nominee then you will seat them is not very satisfactory. He's saying that if their votes don't matter he'll allow them to vote. So his position is a non-position.

    As many here have said, he can make this problem go away by winning OH, TX, and PA.


    The Whole Truth (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Sunshine on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    Obama did campaign in Florida, he was the only one that ran national TV ads that were televised in Florida during the primary..  Clinton and Edwards didn't...

    Only (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    a hillary supporter would think that because someone saw a campaign commercial, that is campaigning.  Campaign is about organizing, and he couldn't do that in Florida.  Besides if you are so sure she won it fair and square why not have another vote?  it was a huge margin. even if it shifted a little it wouldn't mean much.

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    The agreement they all signed referred to an agreed on definition of campaigning which unquestionably included advertising of any kind.

    Personally, I believe that the Florida ads were the unintended result of a national ad buy but even if inadvertent and trivial, they were a violation of the campaigning ban.  I don't believe the Obama campaign disputes that.


    was also a violation but we have to accept in good faith that at the time he did not realize it.

    A day after he signed the pledge (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    but maybe he didn't read it, since that is the reason he gives for answers that he now disavows but were on an Illinois candidate questionnaire that he also signed . . . or maybe not, because he says that a staffer filled it out, and maybe the staffer forged his name?  (It's WORSE -- What Obama Really Signed and Endorsed!)

    Florida was close to the perfect. . . (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    election, at least in my book.  Equal coverage giving to candidates through the media, with debates the primary point of knowledge.  No issues surrounding disparity of resources or anything like that.

    If we ever get campaign spending limits and public financing it will look a lot like Florida 2008.

    Bottom line: (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by phat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:01:05 PM EST
    If we don't hear the phrases, "the great state of Michigan" or "the great state of Florida," we lose the general election.

    Something has to be done about this and I think the 2 people who have to decide that are Hillary and Obama. If one of them refuses to attempt to come to an agreement, we know where their priorities lie.

    It doesn't matter who the nominee is.


    Perhaps we should wait and see (none / 0) (#86)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
     what the results of the upcoming elections will be in three weeks. This may be all moot if Obama wins Texas or Ohio. We do need clear plan in place of what to do if he does not. Imo a brokered convention will be a tragedy.

    I'll plagerize a song Obama "superstar, are you really what they say you are?" If he can walk on water like some apparently think, then surely he can win one among Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. If Hillary holds, I say Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party have a huge problem-- a solution to which does not exist whereby every faction will be satisfied.

    SOOO... I agree. They should hammer out an equitable agreement.

    P.S.-- Has anybody thought of sprucing up the "fourth branch" theory of Cheney? /snark


    Manipulation (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by koshembos on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    As usual the message coming from the Obama camp is an opportunistic attempt to nullify votes that don't go his way. He did it in Nevada and is now trying to do it to Florida. The demand for caucuses is even more outrageous because it basically demands that the Florida vote be reversed so Obama will win. This is malicious audacity.

    We kind of had it with Markos; from a highly respected Netroots figure he has turned in an Obama clown. Even Big Tent find his posts outrageous at times.

    If one looks at elections in other democratic countries, e.g. UK, Israel, the campaigning is short and very seldom spills into the bizarre cult building we experience here.

    The demand to revote is simply Obama's request to reverse the willing of the voters. This is the new progressive movement complete with the A-List of past really progressive blogs.

    Floridians United (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by majkia on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:14:16 AM EST
    As a Florida Democrat, I am so sick of hearing how we must revote or caucus. You're right. Who cares if the candidates didn't campaign in the state. There's news, people!  We get TV, radio, even, gasp, Al Gore's Internet!  We voted in huge numbers despite (or perhaps even because of) the controversy. Now that we voted, and worked the polls and got every vote counted in the state, the stupid stupid  DNC wants to not let our votes count, which the Republican legislature probably wanted all along.

    Geez, and I thought the Dems wanted every vote to count. Apparently not.  What happened to Howard Dean?

    The Clinton name got Hillary votes (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:05:53 PM EST
    that she would never had seen if Obama was allowed to campaign in Florida.

    Everyone knows that, or at least they should.

    Was Obama allowed to campaign (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    in California?  There goes the name recognition theory.

    Oddly enough I had several conversations (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:53:46 PM EST
    with Democrats down here in Florida. Everyone I talked to seemed to know who Obama was. We discussed HRC's electability versus Obama's fresh face and Edwards. When Edwards dropped out my Edwards friends discussed Obama v HRC.

    South Florida has an elderly population that heavily favored HRC and would today if another vote were held. Obama would gain some, but I don't think he would win.

    Obama supporters would be better off concentrating on trying to take either Ohio PA or Tx. Redoing Florida is more likely to cause disunity.  


    as would counting (none / 0) (#64)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:06 PM EST
    the current votes

    It won't matter if Obama takes Texas or Ohio or PA (none / 0) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:56:38 PM EST
    Spend your time wisely. Florida is a fight nobody should want.

    Obama might do better, but won't win Fl (none / 0) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:58:28 PM EST
    in a do-over. Much better to concentrate on making Florida unnecessary.

    The Clinton name gets her votes and loses (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    here votes also.

    As molly said everybody in Fl (none / 0) (#75)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM EST
    knew who Obama is.  But as stated the South Florida vote is more inclined to vote for Clinton and that happens to be were the biggest concentration of Democratic voters live.  We have a saying here, the fight is for the I-4 corridor South Fl is Basically Democratic even with it's large Cuban population and North Fl is basically Republican so the fight is for Central Fl

    Hillary wins if you can't campaign (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:59:33 PM EST
    that is how Vladimir Putin wins Russian elections; by not letting people campaign.

    but you know tell your self whatever you have to, win at all costs.  

    Right wing talking point (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    Good one, right out of the playbook

    Yes, that's right. . . (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is Vladimir Putin.



    Actually, Putin was asked recently about (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    HRC's remark that Putin lacks a soul.  His response:  a head of state should have a head!  

    Hahaha.. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:13:26 PM EST
    I can't believe you just compared Hillary Clinton to Putin. That is too funny.

    I mean its one thing to win an election in which campaigning was not done, (although, supporters of both candidates were spreading campaign literature and stuff, plus I think tv is not a foreign item in Florida) and its another to win elections in which you go uncontested because you either kill your challengers or greatly debilitate them.


    agree with you totally Jeralyn!!!! (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    Well said....

    Just easier to follow the rules... (none / 0) (#7)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    and seat 50%. That 50% should be for all states that upped their primaries.

    If the DNC won't follow it's own rules, then anything is possible. That's called anarchy. Terrible, terrible, terrible for organizations and government.

    Again with 5 give it up (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:25:50 PM EST
    Both 1a and 8 state that it shall or must be 50%

    It did follow the rules (none / 0) (#14)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    we are talking about breaking them.

    Meanwhile, the damage wasn't spread evenly... (none / 0) (#29)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    And what about SC? It upped it's primary, and didn't get the same treatment.

    No, you either pass the punishment evenly or don't do it at all. It shows favoritism, and bound to cause party strife.

    Over a million votes cast aside? With that thinking, Bush wasn't the enemy in 2000, it what the Democrat Party itself, for picking candidates and sinking them themselves.

    At this rate I'll have more faith in Huckabee winning the GOP nomination, compared to the either Clinton or Obama -- as their own will sink them!!

    Get real folks, get real.


    Can I assume (none / 0) (#11)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:13:27 PM EST
    caucuses are out of the question because Hillary might lose them?

    can you also assume (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    that obama wants one cuz it so clearly benefits him?

    why is hillary's opposition in more worthy of criticism?  


    In Florida from what I gather from (none / 0) (#18)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM EST
    my wife and other Democrat friends caucus don't sell.  And I doubt you will convince the majority of those 1.7 million registered Democrats that voted in that primary that they should accept a caucus.

    I am (none / 0) (#28)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    not suprised in the least.

    Compare this (none / 0) (#97)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    the [National] DNC offered to put up $866,000 help fund a caucus with 120,000 ballots and 150 voting sites

    to the FL DNC response

    6,700 locations for the state-run primary would hurt efforts to build the party in this key state and could affect the outcome of property-tax referendum to be held on January 29.

    Anyone who has lived in Florida (none / 0) (#103)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    knows that 150 sites would be ridiculous.  Secondly as I have stated why a caucus something that Floridians have never done and from what I gather from my neighbors on both parties they consider undemocratic.

    More like (none / 0) (#53)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    if a state never had caucases before, they won't know how they operate. In FL, sure don't need anymore problems in casting a vote!

    Another primary, as the residents will know how it operates, would be more ideal. But I doubt the DNC would allow it due to a hasty reorganization of pollsters and cost.

    It's the logistics that is the main problem.


    Wow, knowing. . (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    how Florida runs it's elections, I'd almost be curious to see how badly they could screw up a caucus!

    LOL (none / 0) (#78)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:02:20 PM EST
    After checking out my CA absentee ballot, (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    I am not so critical of those butterfly ballots now.  Since the CA Sec'y of State barred my county's Diebold machines (local registrar came from Diebold!; but that wasn't the reasons), no punch out ballot; fill in the bubbles completely; THEN, turn over the ballot and vote for the propositions on the reverse side.

    Same thing in Fl at my county (none / 0) (#96)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:35:18 PM EST
    We use the scanning machines.

    I wish we still had the punch cards... (none / 0) (#107)
    by SandyK on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    nothing more satisfying than PUNCHING your candidate out. ;)

    Seriously, it made the vote really feel like one. The touch screens just don't do it...actually quite drab.


    Couldn't agree more... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Key on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:19:35 PM EST
    I think you're absolutely right (and I don't normally think that).  The citizens in Florida should have their votes count too.  Essentially  the Democrats are letting the Republicans disenfranchise Democratic voters in Florida.

    If Obama really means what he says about unity, then he should include everyone.  Yes - EVEN PEOPLE FROM HIS OWN PARTY.

    And if Clinton really wants change, she should start with changing the internal B.S. that spews out from her campaign (and the party as a whole).

    Honestly? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:28:21 PM EST
    I don't believe that Obama suffered because of the lack of campaigning allowed in Florida.

    You really think Hillary would have got near as many votes as she did in a real campaign?

    She did great in California, where there (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:32:36 PM EST
    was certainly a real campaign.

    that is (none / 0) (#51)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    avoiding the question.

    And her numbers in CA dropped quite heavily after Obama campaigned there.


    I guess we will never know (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    I don't agree on the name recognition. Up in the Northern part of the state, the rural, there was awesome turnout for Obama, do you think those people did not know who he was? C'mon, the whole country was talking about the first African American and first woman candidates at that stage. People all over the world knew his name by then.

    Excellent you are right of course (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:38:57 PM EST

    Well.. (none / 0) (#50)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    Clinton had a 30 point lead in California when there were more than 2 candidates in the race. Obviously when there are just two of them the gap will close, considering the whole media-Camelot tsunami. But she stil got more than 50% of the vote and that aint nothing.

    Also about this whole name recognition thing. I don't really know why that is used as something negative for Hillary Clinton. I mean George Bush has universal name recognition, do you think he would get the majority of votes in the country? People vote for her, because they know what she has done for so many years. They know that she's done stuff and so they would vote for her. Obama gains ground because of his 'rock star' appeal. But people do not really know what he has done to make their lives better.

    Also I think the week before the Florida primary, if there was someone who had terrible press, it was Clinton. If there was someone who was sending shivers down Chris Matthews legs, it was Obama. He had had the best freaking media week ever - until the week after that.

    so if they actually ran campaigns (none / 0) (#52)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    you think the vote would be the same?

    A vote is a picture at that time (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    if you do a revote it's not accurate. Now the balance has changed, no Edwards, we are closer to an outcome. That was when their election was, all the voters had equal information. That is it. Best part, people can win without tv. ads. What a novelty. Maybe this could be a precedent.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#80)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    I don't think the vote would have be enormously different. I think she would have won anyway. That's in Florida. I think she would have won Michigan too, but that is just a guess.

    And again (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    we're talking about voters here, people who went out to vote even though many of them (not all) knew their votes wouldn't be counted.

    Imagine the determination to vote when you don't think the vote will count (or to vote and then find out later that the vote doesn't count.)

    My strategy is to think about the long-term needs of Dems.  And this whacking out of Florida votes to fit short-term needs is a really awful idea for the long-term -- for YEARS to come.

    If anyone needs a do-over, it's Dean.

    how does changing the rules (none / 0) (#59)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    mid game help party unity?

    You are just picking the other side as the ones pissed off.


    Don't care about the result (none / 0) (#116)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    near as much as I care about EITHER party or any candidate thinking they have the right, rules be damned, to dismiss the votes of over 1 1/2 million voters.

    its a tar baby (none / 0) (#87)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    the powers that be are hoping that one candidate eclipses the margin of victory in MI and FL, rendering the issue moot.  then they'll be seated but without altering the result.  i'm not saying that's what happens, but they won't resolve this until it's absolutely required, which at this point isn't the case.

    I think counting FL would actually help Obama... (none / 0) (#93)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:30:42 PM EST
    in the long run.  The way things are going, even with FL & MI delegates, HRC will probably fail to get the most pledged delegates and maybe popular vote.  Obama's willingness to do something that might threaten his own nomination in order to not disenfranchise a million dem voters would:

    a.) prove he's not just another politician, but someone who actually believes in doing what's right

    b.) collect more superdelegates who are not as of yet ready to buy into his change/unity claims but would be convinced by his self-sacrifice

    c.) probably result in a boost of votes in the remaining states for the same reason he might woo superdelegates, and;

    d.) assure that when he goes into Florida in the GE he doesn't have to answer for the fact that he refused to go to bat for them and make sure their votes counted

    For the short- and long-term, he really could only benefit from this, unless Hillary really crushes his momentum beyond TX & OH.

    Of course this is all assuming Obama hadn't already pretty much said FL can screw off unless they do things his way.

    Superdelegates or Florida .... It's teh rulz (none / 0) (#99)
    by jerry on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:36:37 PM EST
    People that insist on following rules should support
    a) supporting superdelegates regardless of their vote
    b) not count Florida

    People that want to break one rule should support breaking both rules if they want to seem consistent and fair.  They should support
    a) not counting the superdelegates
    b) counting Florida

    To insist that we ignore the superdelegates AND toss out Florida and then to say that's the non-partisan, fair thing to do?

    That's Kumbaya.

    no one is seriously floating the don't count (none / 0) (#101)
    by sef on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    the superdelegates.  What is being discussed among the superdelegates themselves & those trying to sway them, is how do you give the appearance of procedural fairness and procedural (for lack of a better term) democracy to what many feel could turn in to a  fairly undemocratic & byzantine system.  Bottom line is superdelegates will likely decide this thing, but if they swing the election away from the pledged delegate winner the party may fracture.

    I just don't understand what this means... (none / 0) (#106)
    by jerry on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    Bottom line is superdelegates will likely decide this thing, but if they swing the election away from the pledged delegate winner the party may fracture.

    I've heard this repeatedly, and still don't understand what this means.

    If the popular vote is for A, and the superdelegates vote for B and turn it to B, all hell will break lose.

    So near as I can tell, this means we want to not count the superdelegates.  Any other okay outcome is equivalent to just not counting them, isn't it?

    What seems especially dumb about this is that if the vote is 50.002 A to 49.998 B, in other words, basically a dead heat, and the superdelegates toss it to B, we'll still see people up in arms.

    So like I said, the proposal as I understand it is to ignore the delegates.


    So what is the delegate split out of this? (none / 0) (#100)
    by sef on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    So what would the delegate split be out of your proposal anyway?

    And Florida's number (if the delegate split is what I think it is) isn't going to give HRC enough to catch up with BHO

    A Michigan voter's take on Florida's primary (none / 0) (#109)
    by gsbrva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:48 PM EST
    I have serious doubts about the Florida primary.  Why would we seat more than half the delegates in any solution.  That is what the republicans are doing, so why do more?  It's not like we can bribe FL or MI into voting dem by giving "less punishment" than the GOP does.  

    Here is a little story on the validity of the FL and MI primaries:  My wife and I are both Obama supporters.  Because we had no way to vote for him, we both registered at the polls as republicans and voted in the Michigan primary.  All of our friends who are Obama supporters did the same or voted for Clinton or did not vote at all.  I suspect that Michigan would be another blowout for Obama if it were voted fairly.  I can't prove it, but that's how it looks from the 20 or so hard core Dems that we are friends with.

    I'm very upset that the Michigan Democratic leadership was telling Obama and Edwards supporters to select undecided.  Please investigate this!  It was obvious at that point that Mrs. Clinton's supporters were already trying to stack the deck a few days before the primary. By suggesting that votes would count if you voted undecided, they were trying to establish a rationale for counting the delegates for her.  This was a scam.  How can you count an "undecided" vote for a particular candidate?

    I would be surprised if Florida did not have similar "issues", likely favoring the candidate with more control of the state party (Clinton).  Note: I like the Clinton's, though she isn't my first choice, I will certainly back Mrs. Clinton if she wins.  But only if it is done fairly and openly.

    The Michigan primary was a hoax.  Somebody please convince me that Florida wasn't as well and I'll be happy to listen.


    Two things (none / 0) (#114)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:23:21 AM EST
    You registered republican to vote in the Mi primary?

    Question if Obama doesn't win who you going to vote for in Nov.

    The other,  in Fl the only ads I saw prior to the primary were Obama ads.  All candidates were on the ballot and both clinton and Obama held fundraisers (allowed under the rules) in Fl.  
    Also in Fl you wouldn't have been allowed to register at the polls there is a deadline for registration prior to any election process.


    The idea that more campaigning would have made (none / 0) (#111)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:02:09 AM EST
    no difference is ridiculous.  Obama won races where Hillary started with a lead and closed gaps in the polls in virtually every state.  Unlike Hillary he fought for every state and organized in every state.    Hillary started as the frontrunner and he caught her by running a better campaign.  It absurd to think that had he campaigned fully in Florida he would not have gotten more votes.

    Make Every Vote Count (none / 0) (#113)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:30:41 AM EST
    Jeralyn is right.  1.7 million voters voted in the Democratic primary.  As one of those voters I would like my vote count.

    Eight years ago Democrats throughout the country were fighting on our behalf to make all Florida votes count.  How ironic that there are those in the party who now want to disenfranchise us.  

    As with most things Jeralyn (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    after presenting the facts I find myself in complete agreement with you.  And how can anyone justify nullifying the type of primary that is the model of the reform needed to new caucuses?

    Clinton should get FL delegates. (none / 0) (#117)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:06:52 PM EST
    Obama ran TV ads there, she didn't.

    If Obama gets SC Hillary gets FL & MI (none / 0) (#118)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as ,"no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
    Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

    The fact is that "the rules of the game" were changed to continue to give Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina preferential treatment in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process.

    Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, all violated Rule 11.A., but only Florida and Michigan were punished for it.

    If you're going to enforce the rules, then the rules need to be applied equally and fairly.