I'm just a gay graduate student who supports Hillary Clinton. I'm not a political insider, I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of politics. I just wanted to express my opinion regarding Michigan and Florida from not only a Hillary's supporter point of view, but an average American who values democracy and Democracy.
When I see Obama and the media quoting his popular vote lead and pledged delegate lead, there always is an asterisk or parenthesis next to the lead with the notation (ex. Mi/FL). I guess we have become anesthetized to the fact that Obama leads precisely because Michigan and Florida have been excluded from the count.
But I have to ask, how does it actually feel to continue to quote his lead, with having to continue to quote that he is excluding Michigan and Florida?
It is fairly easy for Hillary. When all the votes are counted, she is ahead in pledged delegates. After PA, when all the votes are counted, she will be ahead in the popular vote.
Hillary supporters aren't angry or frustrated for the sake of being angry or frustrated. We see that there are so many ways to tally the votes, which either include or exclude Michigan or Florida that it disturbs us that the only tally being ballyhooed by the media and Obama is the one that excludes Michigan and Florida.
I wonder what the effect of the race would be if the media was obligated to point out both sets of numbers? Would support for Obama decrease if most of the casual voting public knew that right now, this very second, if Florida and Michigan were counted, he would not be ahead in pledged delegates?
Now I understand that Obama supporters do not want him to include Michigan and Florida. It works against him. But even if Hillary loses the nomination, I will be heartened to know that if ALL the votes were included, she would have been ahead.
If one is being intellectually honest, wouldn't you rather be on the side that counts all the votes, rather than being on the side that excludes certain votes?
I understand that there are plenty of politics behind whether or not Michigan and Florida should be counted or not counted. I think both sides have merit. But above that, I think that it is easy for me to argue for Hillary's side is because it is easy to argue that every vote counts.
I think it is natural for people to want this race to be over. And I think it was natural for people prior to the primary to think that Michigan and Florida would not really be instrumental in determining who the next nominee was. That's why it was so easy to play politics with the decision to not seat Michigan and Florida. And let's be clear, both sides played politics with the decision to not seat Michigan and Florida. Hillary said something to the effect that "everyone knows these votes won't count." And hell, Obama, through no external coercion, took his name off the Michigan ballot. Both sides refrained from campaigning in Florida.
But times changed. Times changed because both candidates are so close. Times changed because both candidates will not reach the magic number by their own pledged delegates to clinch the nomination.
But here is where I disagree with Obama. There have been two fair elections in Michigan and Florida. There was no fraud. There was no hanky panky. Wouldn't it be better for the nominee to be determined after all the votes have been counted, in such a close race, rather than allowing it to be first decided by the supers, after not including the enfranchisement of Michigan and Florida? How would it actually be fair to let Guam, American Somoa and American's abroad to affect the Democratic race, but not allow Michigan and Florida to affect the race?
I hope this resonates with people who feel that all the votes in all of the states matter.