MyDD :: No Florida Re-Vote

No Florida Re-Vote

by Todd Beeton, Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:57 PM EST

Looks like there will be no Florida re-vote of any sort.

Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats on Monday abandoned plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote and threw the delegate dispute into the lap of the national party. [...]

Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman sent a letter announcing the decision.

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the party were to pay for it," Thurman said. "... This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April."

So I guess now all eyes turn to the "half-Nelson."

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who backs Clinton, has suggested one option -- seating all Florida delegates already chosen but only giving them half a vote each. Nelson discussed this idea with Clinton and Obama on the Senate floor last week.

Based on the Jan. 29 results, Clinton would have won 105, Obama 67 and John Edwards 13. Instead they would get half those delegate votes.

Which would mean a net gain of 19 for Clinton.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, florida primary, hillary clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 210 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

how would the popular vote be decided in terms of florida

When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line

by lori on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST

It won't... (2.00 / 0)

she loses.

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

"how would the popular vote be decided in terms of florida"

The popular vote is meaningless. It plays no official role in the Democratic Party's nomination process.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perzackly (n/t) (none / 0)

Election fraud is treason, nothing less.

by NM Ward Chair on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

I like your sig, chinapaulo (Hillary Clinton, the new Joe Lieberman).

Hillarieberman!

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 2)

The popular vote is the popular vote, no matter what happens with the delegates.

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 0)

Too bad the popular vote doesn't have any objective value or meaning.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

True dat, but what an odd observation to make about the democratic process. I think I'm going to have a problem with this...

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

The observation I make is that some folks will enter into a competition measured in delegates without objecting at the onset to that metric being the one that determines the winner only to start getting all self-righteous once they start losing by said metric.

That's the type of dishonesty you would expect out of a candidate who would agree before the primary season started that 2 states had violated the rules and would consequently not have their delegates seated and then try to have them seated out of desperation later as if it's not transparent what is happening. Hell, you might even expect to see such a dishonest campaign join the competition and the DNC in telling people that their primary won't count and then, after the fact claim it's fair to use the results. That's my "odd observation"

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Are you also opposed to the electoral college?

by Becky G on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

"True dat, but what an odd observation to make about the democratic process. I think I'm going to have a problem with this..."

The Democratic Party's nomination contest is decidedly and intentionally undemocratic. Disproportional representation? 50+ caucuses and primaries each with different and confusing rules? superdelegates. Talk about undemocratic...

Don't forget -- it's a Democratic nomination process, not a democratic election. The goals and outcomes are different, and the popular vote doesn't mean a thing.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

It may certainly have meaning to the super delegates. They're allowed to consider whatever they want.

by ryeland on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

"It may certainly have meaning to the super delegates. They're allowed to consider whatever they want."

You're absolutely correct. They can also make their decision based on the weather that day in Denver. Both the weather in Denver and the popular vote total (to the extent that a reasonable number can even be determined when you count caucuses) carry the same official weight on the Democratic Party's nomination process:

none.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

How quickly forget. All about change we are-- abandoning the moral high ground that electoral institutions that do not favor the candidate who wins the most votes are perverse. I guess they are only perverse if we do not get the outcome we want

by hctb on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1.7 million Floridians voted in the Democratic Primary and both candidates were on the ballot. It was not a meaningless election like Obamanites would like to claim. As factored into the total nation wide popular vote it's the same as before.

by Christopher Lib on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Any election in which candidates are not allowed to campaign is not fair.

Especially one where one candidate enjoys a very significant name recognition advantage.

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama was already in Vanity Fair--Floridians remember those abs, I'll bet. Also, there were more than ten debates and tons of news coverage....though many candidates had lower name recognition than Clinton, "the black guy with the funny name" was well recognized. The reason he didn't do as well probably had more to do with the fact that he doesn't do so well with older people and those who didn't go to college.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You see, the problem w/ this position is that there is no way to determine whether or not your argument is correct or not.

With that in mind, combined with the knowledge that some people will, in fact, decide not to vote when they are aware that their vote will likely not matter for anything, then the only reasonable conclusion is that FL's primary is not legitimate and should not be used to allocate any delegates, regardless of break down.

by sorrodos on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a reason Obama's polling relative to Clinton goes up in each state where he campaigns is because he is able to campaign. He was 20 points behind in Texas and Ohio after Super Tuesday, long after Florida, but the results were markedly different after he had a chance to campaign there.

by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't he campaign in New Hampshire? I seem to recall he was winning there, until they voted.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The correct point of comparison, the one relevant to the argument being made, is where Obama was in NH before he started campaigning.

And he went up after he started campaigning.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls (2.00 / 1)

Lets take NH. Take a look at the trends in these polls dating back to more than a year before election day and going all the way up to the primary:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democrat ic_primary-194.html#polls

Hillary was consistently in the lead in the state in the early polls because people knew her but did not know Obama. In September 2007, before heavy campaigning began in NH, Clinton held as much as a 23 point lead in polls. That massive lead was eliminated as Obama became better known to the voters even though Clinton ultimately squeaked out a win. This same pattern has repeated itself in EVERY state in which Obama was allowed to campaign. To say that Obama's ability to launch a full scale campaign in FL (answering a reporter's question or running a national TV ad that got played in the panhandle isn't a real campaign) would not have had any effect on the results ignores all the evidence in the other states to the contrary.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean seeing him in swimming trunks in a magazine wasn't enough for Floridians? Why can't he seal the deal?!!?

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

After watching Obama gain or take-over poll numbers in essentially every state that the two have campaigned in...how can anyone (with a straight, genuine face) claim that Florida was a fair fight.

Hillary Clinton's husband was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR 8 YEARS!

Vanity Fair.
YMBFKM

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True, with the same argument one could say that one only let's Clinton voters in Florida vote and gives all delegates to her. Since, 1 million people voted, that would be fair, right?

by marcotom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True, both candidates were on the ballot, but a) they were not allowed to campaign, b) many chose not to vote because they were told before-hand that the votes would not count, and c)many decided to vote in the Republican primary (this is the gist of the Obama camp's problem with the MI re-vote; those who voted in the Repub primary will not be allowed to vote in the re-vote). The popular vote will not count.

by PittsburghPete on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, stick with that argument. See how it works out for you.

Maybe, if floridians hadn't been told ahead of time that it wouldn't count, 2.5 million would have shown up. Perhaps the percentages would have been different.

You know the primary also included a bill affecting homeowners. People of or past retirement age are far more likely to own a home. That age group is a demographic that heavily favors Clinton. Conversely Obama's demographic is full of people who would have had to call off of work or a at least use up a few hours of person absence time from work to go vote in a primary that they had been told would not count. One demographic had a practical reason to go vote (homeowners), while another was given reason not to waste their time. The primary was most assuredly not fair. It's obvious to everyone, but the mob at Clinton sites.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vote (none / 0)

In Florida, there's just not one day to go vote; the voting stations are open for at least one week before primary day, and voters can vote whenever it is convenient to them.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vote (none / 0)

I don't live in Florida, but I can tell you that I would not have gone and voted in a primary that I knew wouldn't count. I work 12 hour shifts and alternate between 3 and 4 day work weeks. I have a two and half year old son and a one and a half year old daughter. My wife is going to nursing school. I try to keep the kids busy on my days off so that she has time to do homework. We would and did make time for a primary vote, but we had to MAKE time (and that's with 3 and 4 days off at a time). We cannot be the only family that is busy. There just is NO WAY that nobody stayed home because they saw that ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AGREED ahead of time to not seating the delegates. There just isn't any getting around that fact.

Everyone in the country (with the exception of a few coma patients and willfully blind Hilary supporters) was a awake and aware of what the whole nation was told. THE PRIMARY WOULDN'T RESULT IN ANY SEATED DELEGATES.

Trying to argue for anything else is transparent, dishonest, desperation. Judging by the consensus in the thousands of e-mails mentioned in the article, even a majority of Florida voters see it for what it is.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vote (none / 0)

You know lockwasright. No No No

Not everyone would know.

I met a lovely young lady in our state who didn't know you had to register to vote in our state. She wanted to vote in the general election. Went to the election spot and was turned away.

There was another person who went to the regular polling place who was told that the place she had voted in was changed to somewhere else. That was in the evening of the general election. By the time I met her she was at the second place she was sent to vote at. Poll worker helped her figure out the location of were she was supposed to vote. Again that was on election day in the evening. I hope she made it to her voting place before it closed.

So no I doubt that everyone in Florida or Michigan knew that the primary wouldn't be counted. They would have said hey it's an vote. If it was illegal they wouldn't have had it in the first place. Other wise why go to all the expense of holding the primary in the first place.

Which by the way. Why did they spend money for a primary if it wasn't going to count?

by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:06:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vote (none / 0)

Still gonna ignore that a whole bunch of people WHERE told that it wouldn't count, huh?

Gonna keep pretending that there was no effect on any voters in Florida as a result of that?

I already had doubts about the value of your arguments. Now I am beginning to question your values overall.

Be honest, even if it's just this once. The moment even some of Florida's voters heard the announcement that Florida's primary wouldn't count it became impossible to call the January primary fair for use. I am not against finding some other way to give voice to Florida in the primary. I have had nothing to do with any of it as I am not in Florida. I can assure you that I would have had no objection to a revote by mail, caucus, or another full blown primary. (Floridians appear to be the ones who have decided not to redo) Let us not, however, insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that the original primary was not effected or affected by the well known and publicly agreed to by all candidates DNC ruling way in advance of the voting.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vote (none / 0)

Hey lockewasright.
Taking a day or two off from politics.
I didn't want to think I was disrespecting your questions.
Got word that a family member has died. It wasn't unexpected but still very sad.

I don't want hard feeling here.

So, as said above, I am taking a day or two off from politics.

Today is the first day of Spring. Think I'll go look for Dogwoods and Redbuds.

I hope you have a good day. Will be back to talk politics. Just not sure when that will be.

Best,
12 dogs and a blog

by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:49:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If its not "meaningless", then its at least illegitimate.

When people have been told that their votes will officially not matter, it affects whether or not some will actually go to the polls.

If you want to claim that the FL primary is legitimate, then you're coming down on the side that says Medvedev's victory in Russia is legitimate.

by sorrodos on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

It sounds as if the voters themselves opposed a re-vote.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/17/776838.aspx

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST

Florida Democrats Says No to a Re-Vote (none / 0)

From your link:

Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input.
Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again.

Florida Democrats were all for jumping their Primary to the front of the line.

House votes to move up primary

TALLAHASSEE - Hoping to muscle Florida into a preeminent role in picking next year's Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, the state House voted 115-1 today to leapfrog almost all the other states and set a Jan. 29 primary, with an option to go even earlier.

"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh

by Lefty Coaster on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's over... (1.50 / 2)

Is it okay for Clinton drop out now Hillary supporters?

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:00:53 PM EST

Re: It's over... (none / 0)

If the full delegation was counted, that would only be another 20 votes--this doesn't change things, it's still going to be decided by the superdelegates. Since Obama was not able to seal the deal when he had the chance, it's going to be decided by superdelegates, one way or the other.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's over... (none / 0)

Of course superdelegates will decide this.

But do you really think Clinton will be able to persuade 75% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates needed to offset Obama's pledged delegate lead?

Highly improbable.

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's over... (none / 0)

If she can't can't win caucuses how do you expect her to win superdelegates?

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's over... (none / 0)

Superdelegates don't drink lattes. Everyone knows that. Shouldn't be a problem.

Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts

by jaiwithani on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's over... (none / 0)

Maybe candidate "Uncommitted" can give her some suggestions. He was pretty persuasive in MI.

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

Florida's delegates should all be seated. At the very least Bill Nelson's proposal should be followed, but ideally they should be seated as normal.

Florida should not be denied a voice at the Democratic convention.

by liberalj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

I would rather have half of them seated, to prevent the calendar madness that would hit in 2012 absent some effective penalty. Maybe by then we can move to a rotating primary schedule.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

I guess so. Florida should definitely be included in the popular vote though.

by liberalj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Popular vote (none / 0)

There is no official popular vote. You can include it in your personal tracking, and some other people will too, but most of us are going to track delegates and occasionally say, "Obama is ahead by X if you count caucus estimates and Florida but not Michigan..."

Realistically, Clinton's only distant shot at winning the popular vote was a Florida revote in which she widened her lead (though I doubt this would have happened - Obama's narrowed the margin in every contest he's campaigned in). Clinton might net 450,000 from PE, WV, and KY. Not enough to catch Obama by any metric (unless you include Michigan as all-Clinton), and certainly not enough once Obama's probable wins are figured in.

Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts

by jaiwithani on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Popular vote (none / 0)

Including Florida she's about 500,000 behind. I think that she can make this up. Especially now Puerto Rico is holding a primary.

She is actually ahead in terms of self indentified Democrats, Obama's lead is dependent on cross over Republicans and Independents.

If Michigan has a do over then i think she can do it. North Carolina and Indiana are becoming crucial i think.

Clinton needs to be able to go to the convention close in delegates, and tied or ahead in the popular vote.

by liberalj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Popular vote (none / 0)

500k is a serious stretch. 300-400k in PE is possible, but 200-400k for Obama in North Carolina is as/more likely. After that... there won't be a swing for either candidate of more than 200k net.

The "Obama depends on Republicans" meme misses two things: One, it's based on exit polls. Ask President Kerry about how accurate those are, especially when (as here) we're talking about differences of single digit percentages among subgroups. Two, Clinton has been winning the Republican vote since Limbaugh maunched the "keep her in it so that we can win it" campaign. The same exit polls which suggest that Obama is tied or behind among self-identified democrats prior to March 4th suggest that Clinton owes about 100k popular votes to Limbaugh crossovers since March 4th.

Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts

by jaiwithani on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Why not penalizing them next cycle?

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

What's the difference? They moved their primary in THIS cycle. Why wait?

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

Because the goal is to make sure they don't do it again. If you stick tough to the rules, you give Clinton a reason to go to the convention.

What are the chances that we're going to have two candidates with the same level of support split between them next cycle? Not likely.

Seat FL as is, and do a revote in MI. Clinton benefits in FL, Obama benefits in MI (if they can find away to agree on the Independent/Republican voters who went for McCain).

Next cycle, the chances of of FL and MI mattering are slim, so it doesn't hurt to hold off.

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Florida Dems had no choice. They were voted down by the Republican majority that moved the primary up.

by ellend818 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

AFAIK all Democrats voted alongside with the Republicans in favor of this move.

Other than that, the Democrat party was of course stupid to deprive the state of all its delegates -- they should have gone the 1/2 route from the start and let the candidates campaign properly.

by Aris Katsaris on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Because putting off the penalty until the next cycle allows Hillary to poach the delegates in this cycle. All this blah blah about democratic principles is really about winning at all costs.

by mikeinsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

poach? Which delegate fish are we talking about? Maybe these are the chickens coming home to roost?
Seriously, this is not a delegate poaching. You do a disservice to your arguments with such hyperbole.

by hctb on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Did you know that IA, NH and SC all broke that same DNC Rule on primary dates (Rule 11A)?

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida has been screwing up elections since 1876 (none / 0)

It's getting really tiresome.

It's time to play by the rules.

"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh

by Lefty Coaster on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

How many of those delegates do you know personally? How would you choose which of them could go and which had to stay home? A lot of these people have put a great deal of energy, time and even money into campaigning to be elected as a delegate to the national convention.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 3)

The best solution is to dock both delegations 1/2 of their delegates and all their superdelegates, and be done with it. Here's why:

1) Nobdy gets "disenfranchised"

Metes out punishment so as to deter future states from putting us in this situation
Reduces the influence/impact these states were seeking to enhance by moving their primaries up in the first place. The punishment "fits the crime".
The state parties get to save money that can be used more efficiently in the GE to get Democrats elected up and down the ticket; and
It is the same punishment that the GOP meted out, thus negating any GE "backlash" from voters.

/Obama supporter

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Metes out punishment for whom?

You are going to punish the voters for something they didn't do?!?

After the 2000 recount in Florida?!?!?!?!!?!

I am amazed that this is coming from anyone in the Democratic Party.

How in heavens name can you say this.

I say this because that's what the 2000 recount was about. Having votes count.

But let just think a moment. What the heck do you folks think is going to happen in the general election if you do this.

My goodness. What a field day the Republicans will have with this. 1/2 votes (oh history) Democrats say no votes count in Florida?? (oh history.)

I am astounded that this is being said!

By a Democrat!

After the 2000 recount!

by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

Uh, you do know that that is exactly what the Republicans are doing, right (seating 1/2 the delegates from both of those states)? I have no idea how they could have a "field day" when they're doing exactly the same thing.

Again, there is no "disenfranchisement" when you count 1/2 of the delegates. Much like the electoral college, the number of delegates a state receives is only crudely proportional to its population. The DNC even gives some states extra delegates as an incentive for participation. Mushing these two separate systems together is illogical.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 2)

Calm down, Here are something to consider:

Florida, regardless of the Democratic nominee has about 5% chance of voting blue. This is a Red state that has been getting redder for the last decade.

The Republicans in Florida have already lost 50% of their delegates and you don't hear them screaming that they'll vote for the Democrat do you? Of course not because this entire issue is a straw man put forward by camp Clinton to try and gain delegates she is not entitled to gain.

If the delegate count is halved and doled out by percentage of the vote in the ILLEGAL convention, the voters will still have their voices heard in exactly the same percentage that they voted.

This kerfuffle is all about getting more delegates into Hillary's column, and it is rather disingenuous for anyone to even suggest it is anything but.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

by Its Like Herding Cats on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

"The last decade" is over, Florida is actually trending Democratic in the last couple of years. The Republican majorities in the state House and Senate were based on Republican redistricting after the 2000 census. The economy is heading south..."for sale" and "for rent" signs are everywhere. There is an excellent chance of Florida going Democratic, though Obama seems intent on handing it to McCain, wrapped up in a nice red ribbon.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

LOL Alice,

I sure am learning A LOT about the process of picking a candidate.

For instance.

My vote may or may not count.

Depending. Let's haggle.

At least Alice you weren't told that if you were a southern voter they didn't need your vote because they could win without you like I was.

Oh wait. If you are indeed in Florida the folks replying to my comment just did.

I keep hoping they'll stop shouting at each other and thank the folks in the south for voting Democrat. But so far, all I've heard, here, is that southerners are racist and sexist and only vote for Democrats because Rush Limbaugh said so.

Thus ignoring your comment.

by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Please enlighten me with the proof of Florida trending Democratic, maybe you have access to information which I do not, but everything I have seen in print and publishing shows a clear Republican trend in Florida.

I really would like to see evidence of the opposite and I might then have hope for the Democratic party in Florida.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

by Its Like Herding Cats on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Voters are always being "punished" for things they didn't do. We have representative government meaning a small group makes the decisions and we all have to abide by them. Florida voted to move their primary up thus sealing their fate. They were warned and did it anyway.

by Becky G on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: representation (none / 0)

We have proportional representative democracy.
If they cut a vote in half, it's no longer directly proportional to the voters.

one person. one vote. (no half votes)

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: representation (none / 0)

Not true. The overseas Dems got 1/2 delegates. In regular caucus states there are cases where a candidate gets 1/2 delegate due to the way the vote works out.

If Obama agrees to the 1/2 delegate proposal it's a gift to Hillary and he should negotiate something in return.

Republicans = Borrow and Squander

by GFORD on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Metes out punishment for whom?
MI and FL. How else do YOU suggest that the DNC deter states from putting us in this exact situation in the future?

You are going to punish the voters for something they didn't do?!?
Voters don't have any "right" to choose the nominee of a political party. If the DNC wanted to pick names out of a hat, they are legally free to do so.

After the 2000 recount in Florida?!?!?!?!!?!
Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about not counting people's votes, we're talking about reducing the influence that the state sought to enhance by violating party rules. People's votes will be counted and will be used to determine the allocation of the 1/2 delegation.

I am amazed that this is coming from anyone in the Democratic Party. How in heavens name can you say this.

Were you aware that only 24% of Floridians think that their delegation should be seated as-is? Why are you so concerned if they aren't?

I say this because that's what the 2000 recount was about. Having votes count.
See above.

But let just think a moment. What the heck do you folks think is going to happen in the general election if you do this.

My goodness. What a field day the Republicans will have with this. 1/2 votes (oh history) Democrats say no votes count in Florida?? (oh history.)
I don't know. What do you think will happen to the GOP relative to Florida? You realize that they docked Florida Republicans half of their delegation, don't you? So will a mass of Florida GOP voters flock to the Dem candidate so as to vent their anger at the GOP's punishment of their state?

I am astounded that this is being said!

By a Democrat!

After the 2000 recount!

See above. And get on board. Even Clinton supporters believe this to be a fair solution. This is a true compromise.

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 2)

I agree with all except the SD's. Florida should LOSE all SD's after all it was their responsibility to try and step in to stop this madness.

Unless the SD's are punished, this type of primary jumping will happen again and again because ultimately it's the SD's who lose out on their role at the convention.

Hell, if only 3people in FL voted, they would still have the same number of delegates go to the convention.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

by Its Like Herding Cats on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

I don't buy the argument that not having a revote or seating them as is, is gonna lose us Florida.

Nobody is going to remember this, and I frankly don't know of anyone from Florida who has proclaimed that unless a primary is redone or the one that took place is counted they will not vote for the Dem nominee or stay home.

Give me a break. Losers who would hold on to this "grudge" weren't reliable voters to begin with.

I happen to think we are losing Florida regardless of anything, even if this "controversy" had never taken place. I just don't think this issue is gonna make it harder for us to win it, any more than Obamabots claiming that only Hillary's supporters would vote for him but not vice versa, it's bullshit.

by need some wood on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:01:55 PM EST

I think it helps... (none / 0)

MI and FL are the only two states that didn't outperform Republicans in turnout. They will be biting at the chomp to get rid of Dems come the general.

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (none / 0)

I meant Repubs

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (2.00 / 1)

well we all know the reason why that happened.

People knew it wasn't gonna count.

by need some wood on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (none / 0)

My aunt in Gainsville, FL voted for Ron Paul because her vote did not count. In the Republican primary is half counted. She is a life long Dem, and I do not think she has ever voted for a repub.

I am also getting tired of every other election hinging on florida. I wonder if they will soon start to branch out and screw up the votes in other states.

by hdaman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (none / 0)

I should probably mention that I am a native of florida and have about 10 of my family still living there.

by hdaman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (none / 0)

If she voted for Ron Paul, she must have been registered as a Republican. If she was a Democrat, she must have been royally p***ed off to have gone to the trouble of changing her party to vote for Paul...unless she really liked what Ron Paul was saying about the war.

by Alice in Florida on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it helps... (none / 0)

She did change her affiliation. And she is an Obama Supporter.

by hdaman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL primary (none / 0)

Florida has a closed primary, so a registered Democrat can't crosssover to vote Republican; and vice versa. no crossover voting allowed.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

The "half-Nelson" is probably the fairest option at this point (that also does not destroy the DNC's ability to control the primary calendar).

Wouldn't it be interesting if Michigan has a re-vote and counts fully, and Florida is the odd state out?

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Yeah, that would be kind of weird.

by marcotom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Actually, it isn't fair at all; Hillary should not benefit from the results; the contest was not sanctioned by the DNC; many did not vote because they knew the results weren't going to count. The delegates should not be seated, including the SDs. If anything, should some sort of compromise have to be reached, only a straight 50-50 split, half the delegates to Obama, half to Clinton, will suffice. Both candidates pledged to ignore FL; Clinton can't try to change the rules now (like she tried in Nevada and Texas) just because she is losing.

by PittsburghPete on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

I think it's probably the "most fair," meaning it has the potential to keep fewer people that we need to beat McCain from going completely apeshit.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

You mean actual voters? :)

by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Hey, the good news is that Clinton will "win" an election.

What's her record since Super Tuesday? 3 Wins against 16 losses?

At this rate she'll lose more slowly.

by ClementeR on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:59 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Yes, lol, I know it's a snark, but she won't even win this one. If the delegates get seated, it will be a 50/50 split, no gain for either candidate, no popular vote. I lean towards not seating the delegates or the SDs; FL and MI will be an example to all the renegade states that try to muck things up next cycle. But once Obama is in the WH, he'll fix the Dem party so crap like this doesn't happen again.

by PittsburghPete on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

And how pray tell will he be doing this?

by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (2.00 / 2)

no 50/50.

no half votes.

one person. one vote. period.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:04:24 PM EST

Re: Florida (2.00 / 0)

One person, one vote has no bearing on the number of delegates a state receives.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

that's not the point. if it has no bearing on delegates, why don't you want all the votes counted?

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

What are you talking about?

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

You count all the votes, but you don't get all the delegates. It seems as if you are the one not getting it.

by marcotom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you hate america? (none / 0)

be serious and i will too.

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

Just my 2 cents, but weren't all the votes counted and certified?

by hdaman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (2.00 / 1)

What about the people who stayed home because they thought this wouldn't count? Shouldn't they be counted? There's no perfect solution. Regardless, this train wreck shouldn't be used by a candidate to change the rules in her favor just because she doesn't like how the rules (that she agreed upon beforehand) turned out.

by mikeinsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

Stop obstructing and get on the side of a real solution.

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

come on man (or woman as it may be)

the half/half system is far easier to count that the old 3/5ths system.

Imagine the fractions involved in counting 3/5ths of the delegates, that math is way to hard for me.

</ snark>

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

According to state party chair Karen Thurman, the voters themselves objected to a re-vote. Your embarrassment seems misplaced.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:56 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 0)

Florida voters were against a re-vote because they want the original vote to stand. Instead, they are being disenfranchised. And yes, I am also embarrassed to be a Democrat in that case.

by markjay on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

I'm sure many do, but her statement was that the reasons "vary widely," so I don't think that that is the full story.

by rfahey22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

markjay is right. and it would be interesting for Karen Thurman to do another survey asking Florida's voters if they would agree to have their votes cut in half.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or another interesting thing to ask... (none / 0)

is would they like their votes counted in some way or not at all?

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or another interesting thing to ask... (none / 0)

I know of one Floridian who is probably paying attention.

Rush Limbaugh.

If he's not already having a field day with it on his radio show, he will be after the primaries.

All that time he said the Florida recount was a sham. I imagine he'll say not counting the primary votes in Florida and Michigan just proves it. Or since the Republican said the same thing in 2000 that ya'll are saying now. He may say welcome to the Republican party.

You aren't punishing the folks who set the primary date, your punishing the Florida and Michigan voter.

Wheither its 1/2 votes or no vote.

After the 2000 recount?

Shame on you.

by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0)

2000 was a general election problem. Totally different situation. Unless it's because this is a loss for Hillary?

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST

Re: Why? (none / 0)

"2000 was a general election problem. Totally different situation. Unless it's because this is a loss for Hillary?"

by Erik on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST

Oh no it wasn't Erik.

It was a "you're not counting my friggin vote" problem. One that would affect the outcome of an presidential election.

And the DNC and Al Gore and all the folks involved on the Democratic side were saying so.

It's sending a message alright.

It says,

"Florida and Michigan voter? You don't count.

Yes we know you didn't chose the date of the primary. Yes we know you went ahead and voted because that was the only primary you had. Sure we know that. And well maybe we did fight to have your votes counted in the 2000 recount. But, voter, someone has to be punished for the actions of a few and guess what. That would be YOU! The Florida and Michigan voter. Yes for the DNC: YOU'RE VOTE DON'T COUNT!!!"

El Rushbo*, Floridian by the way, and Hannity, will be soooooo haappyy to say this every chance they can.

(El Rushbo, for those who don't know, is Rush Limbaugh. Right wing syndicated talk show host. Resident of Florida. No fan of Hillary or Obama or anything Democrat. Just so you know. Cause folks will be hearing this on the internet and about 5000 radio station nation wide, on Rush and Hannity's show for six hours a day. Over and over and over. )

Goodbye Independent and cross over voter.

Something to consider.

by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

Friend, read my post above.

The GOP punished FL and MI delegations by taking 1/2 of their delegations. Rushbo won't be able to use any of the talking points you mention.

Also, the 1/2 delegation solution actually COUNTS ALL THE VOTES. The delegations of those states will be apportioned according to all the votes.

by goodnbad on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

Well first friend.

Rush Limbaugh is an unappologetic Republican.

And we are talking about the Democrats not the Republicans.

Oh yeah he'll use it. If it gets the Republican candidate elected he will. You've got to be kidding if you think he won't.

And besides, it's total delegate number that elects the eventual winner here. You have to get to 2025 total votes. Even if you apportioned according to all the votes, you decrease the total number of delegates awarded by the state. You will be putting a finger on the scale. And yes this affects the voter. They are not 1/2 human beings that cast half votes.

I am a voter by the way.

Besides the voter didn't determine the time and date of when the primaries will take place. They were given a date and time to vote. Take it or leave. They did. They honored their part of the process. If you do anything other than honor their vote as originally cast, you will punish them for something they didn't do.

How is that fair?

by 12 dogs and a blog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

Gov. Chist made a recent public statement that he was talking with RNC about removing the punishment and seating ALL Republican delegates.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

we are asshats. that this is happening in Florida only underscores this truth. Honestly, I feel like we slept through an exam and are trying make excuses for such buffoonery.

by hctb on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:07:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Whatever! Campaigns: Just go with Nelson's compromise! I'm soooo tired of hearing about Michigan and Florida.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:12:39 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

Considering a revote wouldnt change the results by much, I would advise the Obama campaign to settle for the half vote and seat all delegates.

by Pravin on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:13:33 PM EST

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (none / 0)

But splitting the delegates 50/50 won't cost either candidate anything, except perhaps the expectation of invalid delegates they feel "entitled" to. You know who I mean.

The FL and MI elections are invalid according to party rules. Sure, there should be a delegation seated from the states, but not according to results from invalid elections. Seat the full delegations 50/50, but strip the states of superdelegates to hold somebody responsible for the rules violations.

Election fraud is treason, nothing less.

by NM Ward Chair on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Florida Re-Vote (2.00 / 1)

I'm a Florida voter, and I approve of the 1/2 delegate solution.

This way, we are represented at the convention all nice like, but still have a punishment.

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown

by auboy2006 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST

Re: Re-Vote (none / 0)

Why should voters be punished at all? They had nothing to do with the date change. Stop punishing the voters. It's worse than ridiculous; it's undemocratic.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re-Vote (none / 0)

We live in a representative republic, not a democracy. When you vote in a bunch of idiots and they do things that punish you, then yes, you deserve to be punished. They way to rectify that is VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.

I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?

by kasjogren on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:28:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re-Vote (none / 0)

proportional representation means every vote counts.

by moevaughn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]