FL. Poll: One in Four May Abandon Democratic Party

Bump and Update: Miami Herald: Poll shows 89% of those polled want their votes to count.

A new St. Petersburg Times, Bay News 9 and Miami Herald poll finds one in four Florida Democrats may abandon the party if their Jan. 29 votes aren't counted.

Howard Dean and Barack Obama may insist Floridaís Democratic presidential primary was meaningless, but a new poll shows Florida Democrats arenít buying it, and one in four may not back their party's nominee in November if Florida winds up with no voice in the nomination.

Twice as many Clinton supporters -- 56 percent -- want the Florida primary to count as do Obama supporters -- 27 percent. Still, even among Obama supporters, the idea of counting that primary is slightly more popular than holding a new election or dividing Florida’s delegates evenly between the two candidates.

Key findings: [More...]

  • Obama has gained strength in Florida, and today lags Clinton among Florida Democrats 46 percent to 37 percent, with Clinton leading by 33 percentage points among white Democrats and 20 points among Hispanics. Obama leads among African-Americans, 74 percent to 12 percent.
  • More than three out of four Florida Democrats say it’s “very important” that Florida’s delegates count toward the nomination, and one in four said they would be less likely to support the ultimate Democratic nominee if Florida’s delegates don’t count.

What the poll suggests:

The poll suggests most Florida Democrats viewed the Jan. 29 primary as a legitimate election.
For instance, only 15 percent of those surveyed said their main interest in voting was the Amendment 1 tax reform initiative, while 43 percent said the Democratic primary was the big draw and 40 percent said both were equally important to them.

Likewise, 56 percent of those surveyed said the lack of Florida campaigning by the major candidates had "no effect at all" and 16 percent said it had a "major effect" on their choices.

It' time to reverse Florida's penalty and award and seat the delegates according to the Jan. 29 vote.

< PPP PA Poll: Clinton By 26 | Blogger Appreciation Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So we wait until the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    meets in April on this?  Can they and we afford to just let this boil that long?  This is beginning to develop a slight look of ugly with lots of growth potential.

    We're just gettin warmed up (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:10:35 PM EST
    If you think things are bad now and divisive, just wait till April.

    I don't think there will be any way we'll avoid an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket the way things are going (if we want to win in November). I think Dems can live with that. I don't see many other options.


    Obama will have to write off (none / 0) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:00:37 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan.  I see no way around it.  I hope the hype is true that he can pick off some states in the West.  But it's not a good trade in terms of delegates.

    I have said repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    The only thing he stands to gain by MI and FL counting is legitimacy, if and when he wins.

    Does he want to be the first black nominee who won because the rules left out some states?


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:44:53 AM EST
    The Republicans already have anti-affirmative action amendments on the ballots in 4 states for November. That includes CO and MO, two of Obama's hopeful pick-up states. If there is an impression that the Dems bent the rules to enable a black candidate it will resonate with those movements.

    Worse than that (none / 0) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:42:34 AM EST
    If Obama wins because Michigan and Florida are left out he'll likely lose both states.  

    But he may also lose many votes in other states as well.  Enough votes possibly to lose some states that Democrats need to win (as if losing Michigan alone wouldn't be fatal) in order to get an electoral college majority.

    If Obama blocks re-votes in Michigan and Florida and the delegations are left out of the convention many people will view his nomination as won by a lawyerly technicality.

    That will piss off many thousands, perhaps millions.


    Write-off? (none / 0) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    As in "concede the electoral votes to McCain"?

    How is THAT in the interests of the Democratic  Party?  Why should our nominee, whoever it is, have to labor under such a disability?

    Congratulations, Dr. Dean and Ms. Brazile.  You may have made it easier for Obama to get the nomination, but you've made it worth a whole lot less.  But hey, you've shown two state parties that you're TOUGH.  You've enforced the ROOLz.  And that's much more important than having a Democratic nominee who has a good shot to win MI and FLA in the fall.  Getting president who will enforce the frakkin' LAW?  Not as important as enforcing the ROOLz.


    I'm with you. But I want the nominee (none / 0) (#25)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    to win.  I'm just wondering how the loss of Michigan and Florida as possible pick-ups affects Obama as nominee.

    It disadvantages him (none / 0) (#35)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    It very seriously disadvantages him.  And therefore, us.

    Whoever the nominee is, Obama or Clinton, that nominee will have a much tougher road to hoe in getting to 270 if MI and FLA Dems are angry about their inability to have their voices heard in the primaries.


    He can't win (none / 0) (#52)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:29:40 PM EST
    the southwest. That includes the delusional CO, NM and NV strategy. Not gonna happen.

    Colorado doesn't seem delusional. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    Are you saying Obama can't win, or no Democrat can, in those states?

    I begin to agree that the DNC (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:14 PM EST
    does not want a Dem to win this year, with all the messes left by Bush.  Better, the DNC may think, that Repubs face having to fix them -- and then McCain will be so old in 2012 that the White House goes to Obama then.

    If Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:05:25 AM EST
    is nominated this year by screwing Michigan and Florida and loses to McCain, Obama won't be nominated in 2012.

    Democrats have renominated three losers over the years; Cleveland, Bryan and Stevenson.

    Only Cleveland won. Bryan and Stevenson both suffered wider margins of defeat the next time around.  Cleveland (an incumbent) had lost to Harrison in 1888 but won the popular vote and won the rematch in 1892.

    Only three losers have ever won on the next try.

    Jackson, Cleveland and Nixon.  All three under extraordinary circumstances.

    Republicans nominated Dewey twice.  He lost both times.

    This may seem irrelevant but it should be conceded that at the highest levels in this country people generally won't support a loser.

    And we are possibly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


    that may well be their thinking, (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    but i think they have shown time and time again they are out of touch and don't think in a sound logical manner. if obama loses the ge, don't expect a rerun.

    A long tradition of (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    snatching defect from the jaws of victory is being maintained.

    I thought the netroots were driven by the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    desire to reverse that record.

    Looks to me like we may have exacerbated the situation, with all of the conflict and intensity..


    "May" Is The Operative Word (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    We'll see what happens.

    not until November (none / 0) (#85)
    by Nasarius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:22:18 AM EST
    At which point it will be too late. Dean et al. should take this as a warning sign to do something about FL.

    If The Florida Democrats (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    Threatening to leave are so thin skinned that they would vote Republican over this I have no respect for them. I understand why they would be pissed but to threaten blackmail and switch over to the party that f*cked them in the first place is stupid. Let them go. We do not need that kind of loyalty.

    what about brazille (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    and the threats of obama supporters?  two can play at that game as far as i'm concerned.  

    Are You Trying To (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    Hijack the thread with off topic banter?

    What are they thinking? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    We are entering dangerous territory when the DNC is willing to alienate the 4th largest state in the union, and a swing state. As a former Deaniac, (emphasis former), the good doctor needs to seat the Florida delegation.  If anyone saw FTN 2 weeks ago, Dean spoke of the FL situation.  Bob Schieffer, compared him to the coach that is telling Leroy to take the ball when Leroy doesn't want the ball. To Dean, the DNC has drawn the line in the sand.  If the FL delegation wants to be seated, let the FL Dems and the campaigns figure it out.  Sorry, but that's not leadership Governor Dean.

    FL and MI will not be counted (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM EST
    this is an exercise in stubbornness...the rules committee made a mistake and is too childish to admit it; Obama (himself, campaign and surrogates) will never agree to any form of revote or seating (besides 50-50) because they believe they will lose the nomination if that occurs; and the Republicans in MI will be entrenched against anything like a revote because they believe they will win MI because of Donna and Dean's idiocy...

    We've "screwed the pooch" on this one, and all parties concerned benefit from disenfranchisement except 1) the voters 2) Hillary Clinton 3) Democrats...so you know who normally loses in these sorts of situations? ...voters, the Clintons, and Democrats...its the never ending story...

    The nation and the world (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:10:46 AM EST
    also lose because of this totally unnecessary debacle.

    "Rules are not sacred, principles are"

    - FDR


    Things better change by 2012. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:14 PM EST

    A Floridian's Dilemma (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:06:09 PM EST
    I have been torn between Clinton and Obama since mid-January trying to find a reason to lean more than 51/49 towards one or the other, and throughout this process I continue to like aspects of both candidates. The positives of each far outweigh their negatives for any Dem willing to look closely with an unbiased eye.

    I love the knowledge Hillary brings to the table on every issue. I love that Obama doesn't see the world as "us against them" but rather as people to sit and talk with as a way to work through differences.

    As a Floridian who has voted for the DEM Presidential Candidate in the last eight elections, I am completely torn over Obama's inability to speak out on every vote counting. With Hillary I still dread her vote which ultimately helped lead to a meaningless war. But those are both incredibly minor when compared to what the GOP has to offer as an alternative.

    When the Florida revote was taken off the table, I was appalled that Dean would let this scenario play out. Overnight I became an 80/20 Clinton leaner and a good chance I would be one of those 25% abstainers in November if Obama gets the party nod. Yes, I think if Obama had said every vote needs to be counted they would have found a way to make it happen in both Florida and Michigan. Then this morning, I watched the Obama speech. It wasn't his best but it was still inspiring.

    Can someone not willing to make sure every vote is counted (similar to the Bush brigade of 2000) get my vote in November? I really don't know, but once again I sit at 51/49 with my current choice changing constantly.

    charming Florida (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:51:37 AM EST
    As a Floridian and one of the dissed 'older, white women' voters, I am madder than sin.

    I really believe that if Obama is the nominee, by mid-summer when they think everyone has cooled off about this, Obama and his people will put on a charm offensive. I have a feeling that they believe that it will be easy to win over us supposedly 'old, low-information voters'as we are called.  

    They are going to be in for a major surprise. Women have had enough.

    Plus, I doubt that the DNC will be getting the contributions from college kids that they would get from older voters.  What incredibly short sighted people.

    Angry as Hell with the DNC I am (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:05:19 AM EST
    Will systematic demoralising FL's Democratic Party Faithful become Dean's Demise?

    And will he do this at the expense of inserting Obama as an unfit candidate (to the extent that Obama divides us), consequently handing the election to McSame?

    I have lived in Florida since 1982 and worked many hard hours to fund and support local and national candidates.

    I am personally insulted by Dean and other Democratic party members who think they have the right to scold and punish me for something the FL State Republicans engineered. Silly Mr. Dean fell for Jeb's gang's trap, that's clear.

    I'm wicked angry that anyone thinks they will take away my January primary vote for Hillary, and I categorically will not vote for Obama in November in my vote is not counted for its full value at the convention.

    For what its worth (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:20:13 AM EST
    I suspect your votes will be counted, but not until after the next round of primaries.

    I'm figuring they are going to wait and see how Pennsylvania plays out. Despite the clock ticking, there is still time.


    Wow. I'm a little surprized so many feel that (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST

    Let's see who else in the left blogosphere has the grace to post this, and post it without spinning it for Obama.

    There is no spin (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:12:51 PM EST
    The method will be to alternatively blame and or ignore Florida Democrats. How dare they not like their punishment?

    Agreed, there is no spin (none / 0) (#18)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    There is just Howard Dean's masculinity.

    He's painted into a corner (none / 0) (#64)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
    me thinks the nets have become to influential over our spineless non-leaders...

    Its worth noting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    That there have been 2 polls earlier this month which also show voters who will not be voting for the dem candidate if this isn't resolved. I posted them in an earlier thread but they deserve reposting here.

    Geller's poll which was only of Dems who voted in the Jan 29th primary

    Voters said that if the controversy is not resolved and Florida Democratic voters do not have a voice in choosing the Democratic nominee, only 63 percent will still vote with Democrats.

    Among the other voters: 14 percent said they would send a protest vote and consider voting for a Republican, 12 percent said they were unsure, 6 percent said they wouldn't vote for the Democrat for president but would for state and local races and 5 percent said they wouldn't vote at all.

    Another poll

    A whopping 31% of Democrats polled 3/10 by  InsiderAdvantage for Florida Insider say they would be "less likely" to vote for the Democratic nominee if Florida's delegates aren't seated at the national convention.

    In the interest of full disclosure I should say that I am a Florida voter and said last year when this all began that I wouldn't be voting for the dem candidate. So although I try not to be bias towards my personal position when examining these things, it is still worth mentioning.

    They're going to be seated. (none / 0) (#10)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:13:53 PM EST
    There's no way around it - never has been.  The hope was that one candidate would create a margin that rendered the rule-breakers meaningless but that's not going to happen.  Dean is proving himself a poor leader of the DNC but he's not so stupid to hand his party a noose with which to hang him.  This is why Clinton appears relaxed on the issue, and why she never really wanted a re-vote.  There's only one way through it.

    Except the Democratic party (none / 0) (#20)
    by tandem5 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    has, at times, proven to be exceedingly good at running off cliffs.

    True, (none / 0) (#27)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:37:33 PM EST
    but this is not analogous to nominating Dukakis.

    corn you beat me to it. very true! smile! (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:20:58 PM EST
    No, I don't think Clinton thinks Dean (none / 0) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    is going to seat them, and no, I don't thing she's relaxed.

    But the person who really shouldn't be relaxed is Obama.  If you accept that not seating or re-voting FLA and MI makes it impossible for Clinton to win the nomination, then Obama has to wonder whether not seating or re-voting FLA and MI makes it impossible for him to win the GE.

    How can it be acceptable for the Democratic Party to write-off the combined electoral votes of FLA and MI? They have 44 electoral votes between them -- that's more than 16% of the total number of electoral votes needed to win.


    PA and OH (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:50:03 AM EST
    If FL and MI delegates are not seated as per the election results in January or if there is no re-vote (and it seems that both these scenarios have very high pprobability of occurring) it  is almost sure that Senator Obama will be the  nominee.  Unfortunately the nomination will be  tainted. At this point it must be that the Obama camp and the DNC are thinking that it will not damage the party's prospect in GE and that MI and perhaps FL will vote for the democratic candidate. I do not think that  will happen. Given the poll in FL, it does not seem likely that Obama will be able to carry FL. Perhaps MI but not FL. In that case Democrats must carry OH and PA to win GE. Again I am doubtful that Obama will be able to win OH. But even if he does, he will not win PA, McCain will. The only republican candidate who can carry PA  is McCain. PA has strong ties to armed forces and  there is tremendous respect for McCain.(Don't  get me wrong  even HRC cannot be certain of a GE win in PA against PA, but only she can pull it  off with her hometown-girl image and strength in economic issues) And without FL  and PA (and  perhaps OH) how are we going to win ? By  winning Mississippi, Utah and  Idaho? Yes we have again done the almost impossible thing---assuring a republican victory in 2008. Dean should be really proud.

    I can really envision (none / 0) (#105)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:13 PM EST
    The Florida and Michigan delegation walking out of convention and boycotting it.  Otherwise, would they be re-elected in their respective states?

    Republicans must congratulate themselves. Never in their wildest dreams they thought their moving the primary forward would be so effective.

    A map changer, yes.  Look for Michigan and Florida to solidly go republican for a generation.


    You're making my point. (none / 0) (#26)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    It's unacceptable.  It's far-fetched.  It won't happen.

    I wish (none / 0) (#30)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    I wish I shared your belief in this. But Dean has been perfectly clear that he believes the voters will not care about this in the general. That they will vote on Iraq and other issues.

    Now that was last year and maybe he's changed his opinion since then, but I haven't seen any indication of it yet.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:41:59 PM EST
    Just like Tom Daschle was sure that voters would vote for Democrats on economic issues as long as they supported Bush on the war.

    Dean's political instincts -- why do they have any currency at this point?


    Well of course he's not going to blink (none / 0) (#33)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    until he has to.  I wouldn't judge this by the faces  the players are making.

    The voters will care (none / 0) (#69)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:32:53 PM EST
    Believe me, they will be disenfranchised if their primary vote is not counted. Hand the state to the Republicans.

    Bleah...not so (none / 0) (#34)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:50:04 PM EST
    They won't seat them...
    To many people have a vested interest in NOT seating them.
    The credentials committee is also going to be very reluctant to cause a scene...if they do, they will be accused of one thing - racism and the convention will be a mess (there are people that are already vocally saying that if Obama does not get the nomination, they intend on trying to make the convention a mess)

    More have an interest the other way. (none / 0) (#38)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters don't want them seated, and don't have regard for the consequences.  But Clinton and the Dem party generally have a huge interest in seating them.  Even if you assume Obama leads in party player support, there's no way most of those supporters agree with alienating Florida.  This debate about who's on the rules committee is simplistic.  Politics has more layers than an onion.

    Another factor is what really motivates the party players, and it aint all presidential politics.  Most are more concerned with their reelection and survival/expansion of their congressional majorities.  


    Bologna (none / 0) (#43)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    The Dem party is not what you think it is...the average "voter" even when registered as a Dem is not really a party of the party in inclusive sense you're using...

    The local party is generally a club; and very often is fairly exclusive. Some places it may be a "boys" club, some places a "girls" club, some places a young club, others an old club...but it is often an exclusive club of friends that do not often let others join

    The state party is usually some form of loose "trade organization"

    And the national party is more of an interest group headed by a select few people...to Dean's credit he has tried to create a heirarchy where there as been an extremely loose affiliation and top down control in the past...he's trying to build the party by regaining control of the party...hasn't worked (yet)

    But the short and the long of it is that the few folks that actually matter in this decision, are the few folks that were involved in the mistake...Donna Brazile has openly said she does not support revisiting this travesty...Dean has exercised a big zero in leadership on this issue, all evidence points to NOT seating, and the main reasons seems to be basically egg on face...and the credential's committee does not want to be the controversial aspect of the convention, so they are unlikely to buck the decision either...and the cherry on top is politics, Obama will never agree to any decision that does not benefit his campaign (short sighted on this issue though)...so he will never sign off on ANYTHING but not counting or 50-50...


    well... (none / 0) (#54)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:36:21 PM EST
    I wasn't referring to the voters when I was talking about the party players.  

    But to the point, Dean has a strong incentive to make Florida count.  The egg on his face from reversing himself is nothing compared to what he'll get when the Dems lose the general.  He won't risk that.  My guess is that there are still attempts at negotiating going on, but neither campaign will concede much and are willing to take the nuclear option (convention fight).  That's the worst scenario for Dean.  His preference at this point is for them to strike a deal, but it may not happen.

    If you think about the various motivations of the players, the likely outcomes become more clear.  As I said above, trying to read their faces is pointless.  The 'evidence' out there is next to meaningless.  The real fight is not happening in public, and it rarely does.  

    Obama is the only one that truly wants FL/MI excluded.  To him it's worth the risk.  It's not to anyone else.


    It is short sightedness for sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    by Dean, Obama, you name it...

    But to be frank about it all, this is a nomination election. Dean's embarrassment over FL and MI lasts as long as the convention...

    If Obama loses the GE (assuming he's the nominee) some folks of course will blame others (we do have a "victim" culture after all) but Dean does have the "escape hatch" of saying "No, no, Obama lost it all on his own" which will have a degree of truth too (that the people blaming others will of course be blind to)

    We shouldn't forget this is politics (which fits logical and often tried and true patterns)...no amount of  existential/transcendental rhetoric will make it not so.


    Perhaps that's our point of disagreement then. (none / 0) (#58)
    by corn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST
    I think Dean is thinking past the nomination.  He wants to be the guy that fixed the party.  There's only one way to do that.

    I see Dean's view of fixing the party (none / 0) (#63)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:01:43 PM EST
    much more narrowly. I think he is trying to put all the wheels and gears in place so that when the party head flips the switch the machine works...the messages will go top down, the money will flow both directions, and in the end THAT will help Democrats get elected beyond just one election...

    That is the essence of inserting national party into  state and local arenas...which he has done. Democrats have not had a "machine" in a very long time. We've been wondering the wilderness. And in someways we're working against our own efforts (here in the nets)


    Haven't you heard that Obama will (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    change politics and bring new people into politics?  We're talking about a candidate who will bust the paradigm.  These details will work themselves out -- he must be the nominee.

    The people around him believe it.  His supporters believe it.  He might even believe it.


    Are his politics so fresh and new (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:38:44 PM EST
    that he no longer needs to obtain 270 electoral votes?

    That would be breaking the paradigm.


    Yes...the paradigm will change because of one man (none / 0) (#37)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    what a joke...

    There have been better men than Obama, and men that held that held ALL the nation's strings in their hand (FDR?) and commanded ALL of the nation's respect (FDR again) and they couldn't change the paradigm...politics is an adversarial contest...it is that by it's nature...to suggest it be otherwise is like suggesting water can run uphill...not being adversarial is what leads to tyranny of the majority and the decay of democracy...

    Post-partisanship is a sound bite, what we REALLY need is "rational-partisanship"...there is nothing wrong with being a partisan.


    I Also Heard That He Doesn't Need (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:13:27 PM EST
    FL & MI to win the general election and he will 65% of the vote and the Dems will have a 60+ Senate majority due to Obama's coattails. Think some Dems have traded in the donkey and replaced it with a magic pony.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:45:56 PM EST
    If Obama isn't walking on water he is destroying the matrix...

    I have no idea where Obama became the individual who will break the 200+ year mold and defy statistics, logic, theory, etc...

    I remember student government elections from grade school...I realized then that ice cream wasn't going to come out of the water fountains like the candidates promised...I don't understand why as adults we're all forgetting that lesson...


    Super (none / 0) (#11)
    by DA in LA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:15:40 PM EST
    Now someone do a poll of how Democrats outside of Florida and Michigan will feel if those votes are counted.  It's pretty much the exact opposite.

    As much as you want this to be simple, it is not.

    my personal and anecdotal offering (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by tandem5 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:20:58 PM EST
    I don't live in FL or MI, but unfortunately I too will have to abstain if the people of those states aren't represented at the convention.

    I live in THE swing state.- Ohio. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    I will not have the luxury of not voting as a form of protest.  

    I will vote - but if any national Democratic organization calls me for a donation, I'll tell them to stuff and I'll tell them why.  


    As a New Yorker (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST
    I care very much that those votes ARE counted.

    As a resident of MO, I Want The (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    votes counted. I've already written to the DNC and told them if they want my vote in November they need to seat all the delegates in FL and MI.

    As a CA primary voter, I won't (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    be troubled if MI and FL votes count and the delegates are seated.  Will you?

    CA (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:30:42 PM EST
    I want them seated.

    Ask and you shall receive (none / 0) (#24)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    Well partially. It doesn't ask how many will not support the nominee if the delegates aren't seated.Gallup

    23% Refuse to allow them to participate
    25% Favor compromise that would honor results of 1/29
    27% Favor compromise to hold new primary or caucus
    3% Favor compromise with unspecified outcome
    22% No opinion

    They also have a breakdown between Obama and Clinton supporters.


    Tainted nomination (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:23:59 AM EST
    My bet is that people in other states will see Obama's nomination as won by lawyerly technicalities and they will be pissed.

    Tainted every time by technicalities (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    That's Obama's political career -- from the start, he has won by exploiting lawyerly technicalities, getting all opponents off the ballot.  Then, sealed divorce records of opponents suddenly were opened.  It's the way it's done by the Daley machine. . . .

    One in 4 Florida "Democrats" always (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:20:09 PM EST

    This may solve the problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by dem08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:20:15 PM EST
    of The Obama Candidacy. I have read many posts on many sites that featured people who say they are Hillary supporters attacking Obama's speech today.

    Clearly, Senator Obama has a problem and the sooner the Democratic Party counts the delegates from Michigan and Florida, the sooner the Hillary voters will feel the primary contest is being run fairly and consistently.

    I have many doubts about Senator Clinton, but I think that many of her supporters have shown that Obama is unacceptable to them. For example, Taylor Marsh initially posted an entry praising Obama's speech, but by evening accused Obama of being so conflicted by race that he is no longer a viable candidate.

    After profusely praising Obama earlier, she asked: "what kind of man throws his 'white grandmother' at us in such a way?"

    But it isn't simply Marsh and other passionate Hillary sites (the comments at Marsh's site all day were a tad over-heatedly anti-Obama, to say it nicely), the Pastor Wright Saga has brought out the chasm that separates many white Americans and Black Americans. The New Republic's writer posted an essay that suggested that Obama cannot win because of Wright.

    At the least, barring a re-vote, Hillary must be given the Delegates that were awarded to her by the votes cast in MI and FLA.

    If Hillary wins PA by 25 or more points, Obama will have to get out.

    I thought perhaps Obama would wear (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    a flag lapel pin today.  Stubborn guy.

    Interesting to me that Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:53:08 PM EST
    wasn't there, that I could see?

    She has been scarcer than Bill Clinton, ever since her comments in Milwaukee and in Madison -- a month ago. . . .


    She supposedly looked over his shoulder (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:16:12 PM EST
    as he was writing his speech at 3 a.m.  DK has a diary up about her crying, but I couldn't bring myself to open it to find out why.

    Didn't Jesse Jackson ask... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
    if Michelle Obama had cried for the Katrina victims?

    You are sooooo bad. But, now (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    I've looked at that DK diary, which is about Michelle Obama crying backstage after Obama's speech and his best friend tearing up during the speech.  

    she was crying (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:12:20 AM EST
    because she just read the latest Pennsylvania polls.

    Either the LA Times or NYT sd. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    she hadn't planned to be away from home this week but decided to go to The Speech.

    i visited various sites with discussions (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    about all these issues, and i found on all of them, with the exception of the blogs supporting obama, that the majority of posters were upset about the dnc/dean and rev wright.

    I think it's reasonable (none / 0) (#21)
    by dk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:29:46 PM EST
    to ask whether all democrats should consider abstaining from the GE if Florida and Michigan aren't counted (I'm an MA primary voter).

    If Obama and his supporters in the Florida and Michigan legislatures have such disregard for right to vote, then I think the question must be raised whether we want them running this country.

    Which scenario would you prefer? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    That your choice for democratic candidate doesn't win or the Republicans don't win. There's no way in Hades that McCain should be sitting in the White House next year. Abstaining will produce that result.

    Well, (none / 0) (#44)
    by dk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
    If people vote Dems down ticket and there is a larger majority of Dems in Congress, it could neutralize any really bad stuff that McCain could do.

    And it's not like Obama would do anything transformational anyway.  The key to any serious economic reform in this country is health care, and he's made it clear he plans to do nothing with that as President.

    Finally, I think it's a priority to avoid any more Presidents who are in bed with religiuos fundamentalists.  It was odious with Republican Presidents and the religious fundies on the right; it is no better to have Democratic Presidents who are bed with religious fundamentalists on the left.  


    Seriously? (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by DA in LA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:37:56 AM EST
    Are you that unaware of Hillary's religious connections?  Do some Googling.  Mother Jones, Harpers both have some pretty frightening stories from last year about Hillary's religious friends.

    One word:  Scary.


    The issue isn't necessarily (none / 0) (#89)
    by dk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    one's religious associations, it is the political use of those associations.  The problem with religious fundamentalism is that it legitimizes hate and bigotry by dressing them in religious garb.  Thus, Obama legitimizes homophobia and nut-job 9/11 accusations (it's the white people's fault!) when he publicly defends and supports religious fundamentalists, brings them onto his campaign stage, etc.  

    You may disagree with me, but I think the presence of religious fundamentalism in this country is at the heart of what is wrong in this country.  Electing a President who legitimizes religious fundamentalism in any way (whether it be right or left, white or black) is a mistake.  At least one I don't want to be a part of.


    Agreed, but (none / 0) (#49)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    if there's a way to keep McCain out of the White House, I'll opt for that plan. Neutralizing McCain doesn't seem like a productive four years.

    i agree! obama gave a speech today. (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:24:50 PM EST
    so what! it doesn't change anything. so the dnc won't seat florida and michigan? then they can expect to lose the general while repubs snicker. that is not a picture i care to see. i think back to the lack of leadership in congress from dems, and i have to say their lack of forsight does not surprise me.

    if the DNC said your vote didn't count (none / 0) (#36)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    what would you do. I'd be pretty &*^% pissed. Can I say pissed. :-) I think I would switch to being an independent as an immediate protest and I'd recommend everyone do the same. I'm not sure I wouldn't vote for the dem in the GE, but I'd have to think about that too. I mean really, you don't count, we don't want you, go away is the message they're getting. Maybe they'll take the hint and go away.

    and one more thing (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    while I'm on a rant about this. What is a party anyway? It's groups of people clustered with similar interests, many with some of the same common interests, but often a disparate set of groups that can kind of coalesce. If one group is no longer welcome in a party, they should just move to another. If they're all members of a different party (even repubs), they can push their interests in that parties primaries and have an effect. In the long run, parties evolve and come and go. If I were running a party, I wouldn't make a pile of my members notice that.

    You define it perfectly here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:56:21 PM EST
    and Dean and Brazile must lack both dictionaries and history books.  I've said it before -- the situation today resembles in some ways the 1840s, with the breakup of a major party and seeds of a new major party that finally coalesced in the 1850s and soon won the White House.  

    Yes.. a Third Way.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:58:00 AM EST
    maybe the Big Tent has overflowed, and too many people have become 'excess to requirements'.
    Its time to split off a branch and build a new one. But what would we call a new spin-off Party?
    Florida/Michigan Hope & Change party?

    I guess the DNC didn't have good judgement (none / 0) (#39)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    in Obama's terms that means Dean didn't give a speech regarding FL and MI

    Florida Dems (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    Florida Dems were forced to change the primary date by voting almost unanimously against the DNC ruling. Clinton pledged not to participate in the primary but now demands the most important part of participation, the awarding of delegates. The state's congressional delegation refused to consider alternatives. The state party refused to come to the DNC with any kind of plan until it was too late.

    So who do the great minds around here blame? Dean and Obama.

    If the people in Florida want another four years of Bush, and maybe they do with two thirds of their state legislatures Republican and with a Republican governor, then maybe any hope for a Democratic victory there in November is hopeless anyway.

    There you go again, Bob (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:15:29 PM EST
    Hillary and the other candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida.

    You are now trying to twist that pledge into some sort of pledge not to accept the delegates they legitmately won in that primary, even though they fulfilled the pledge they all made.

    None of the candidates agreed to that and you know it.

    So stop trying to shove your twisted views down everyones' throats.  



    The rules allow the delegates to be (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:17:45 AM EST
    seated. There is nothing nefarious about it.
    Clinton followed the rules---SHE did not advertise in FL, as Obama did---and she won the primary.
    Now she is entitled to ask that those delegates be seated, just as the rules allow.
    Don't pretend that Obama's power play has anything to do with principle, and don't try to fool us into thinking that Hillary is breaking some promise.

    I guess we can't impeach Dean (none / 0) (#88)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:24:49 AM EST
    So I guess all we can do is to put as much pressure on him as possible to seat the delegates as voted...  Obama is the only one that campaigned in Fl. with his national TV ads that were playing there so if it was unfair to anybody it was Clinton and Edwards... He campaigned in Mi. for uncommitted, so let him have the uncommetted votes and seat the Mi. and Fl. delegates as voted...  

    the disenfranchisment of voters is a tad (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    more important than obama's feelings.

    tell you what, let's discount s carolina (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    as well. they broke the rules. it seems to me the self righteousness is floating from other places than talk left. you have a nice day!

    and yup, the votes of the average american is darn important. got it!


    your comments have logic to them (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    except the games i personally think obama is playing now with their votes. i hope you will agree that angering the voters in these two states isn't good for the party in the ge. so i think it is time that obama be the unifier and help resolve it. thanks

    No Representation... No Contribution? No Vote? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    Self-righteous? You could say that. But isn't self-righteousness the basis for most change. Weren't Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln a bit on the self-righteous side?

    Being self-righteous is most often seen as being stubborn and wrong, but sometimes it's stubborn and right and lays the groundwork for great leaps forward.


    Except (none / 0) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    that you seem to choose to lay the blame solely at Obama's feet because he didn't do enough.  It wasn't the Florida legislature that didn't enough, even though they were the ones who got you in the mess in the first place and openly refused to do anything about it now.  It wasn't the DNC which decided to go nuclear on Mi and Fl rather simply taking half their delegates away.

    Nope.  It's Barack Obama's fault because he should be leading the charge to fix the system.  

    I am certain most of the more savvy politicos here know that Florida and Michigan will get seated.  But they want them to be seated now in order to swing the momentum to Hillary.  By giving Hillary net 100 pledged delegates in one fell swoop they can claim that she should be the nominee.

    That is what this is about.  That has ALWAYS been what this is about.  


    A New Height of Absurdity (none / 0) (#97)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    People who claim to be adults are actually saying that because the DNC decided to enforce a rule the Florida state Democratic party knowingly and deliberately violated, they're not going to support the Democratic candidate? I understand the anger...but lawdy, are these Democrats really willing punish the US with another four years of Republican rule so they can have a tantrum?

    Voters in Florida and Michigan got hosed because of their state Democratic parties. Get mad at them, get mad at the DNC, fight to change the way things are done for the next election. But refusing to support your own party's candidate...whether it's Clinton or Obama...because you're in a temper is just childish.

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    All of you Hillary supporters don't have to worry.  The Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated.  They will be seated once Hillary concedes.  

    This is nothing more than faux outrage.  The vast vast majority of Democrats will forget all about this by October when the grim reality of a John McCain presidency looms near.  

    I realize that will give little solace to the Hillary supporters here that are primarily interested in giving Hillary free delegates, delegates she once agreed were invalid.   But such is life.  

    It will make no difference whether Florida's delegates are seated in March or June.