Personally, I’d allow them a do-over with half-credit but I’d still support a full delegate do-over.
Yeah, I’m aware that Clinton would certainly take Florida and most likely Michigan.
I’d be fine with a do-over in both FL and MI. Hold a real election in each state, with all the remaining candidates’ names on the ballot, and with the candidates given adequate time to compaign beforehand. It’s the fair thing to do (even if it means my favored candidate loses).
Sure, why not? Why disenfranchise voters because of what amounts to a clerical error? I know how pissed off I was the last two times I voted for president and had the election stolen by Republicans, why in the world would I want to put others through the same thing?
(bolding mine)
Er… Michigan’s “all-white”? :: glances up at her location tag ::
I believe he was referring to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Absolutely not. This would not be fair. Basically, you’re saying, “Hey, if we knew it would turn out this way, we would have done things differently. So we want a do-over.”
The rules were set out, and both candidates agreed to them. There would be no Florida primary, and those delegates would remain uncommitted. That’s what they should stick to. Anything else is gaming the system.
In essense, what you’re saying is, “Let’s flip a coin. If it comes up heads - I win. If it comes up tails… we’ll flip it one more time, and if it’s tails, you win.” I hope you can see the built-in advantage that gives to one side.
And what will you guys do if Florida has their primary - and Hillary wins? Will you still be happy? Will you still think justice was served? And for Hillary supporters, what if you have hte primary, and Obama wins? Is that fair?
The original compaigns were planned around the lack of a Florida campaign. Money was allocated accordingly. Issues and platforms were revealed accordingly.
If there’s one thing you should never do in an election, iyou should never change the rules in the middle or after the fact.
Hillary says she only agreed not to campaign. And Florida’s delegates are very much not uncommitted. Thats a privelege for super delegates. They are most definitely not seated.
Why not, Sam? What is so sacred about rules, agreed upon or not, that makes them immutable? What, exactly, makes this something that is “never done”? What cataclysm is threatened?
I don’t think cataclysm is what we are talking about here. I think breaking the rules would show a general lack of stability on the side of the regulating body. Stability is one thing this voting American would like a little more of.
A little stability? Well, that’s OK. I guess. Maybe.
No, it shpouldn’t count. Everybody agreed that Florida and Michigan wouldn’t count and it’s bullshit to renege on that agreement now.
By the way, Who gives a rat’s ass what the Governor thinks. It’s not his party, it’s none of his business. Why is a Republican Governor trying to tamper with anpther political party’s private nomination process? I’ll tell you why, because the Republicans are shit scared of running against Obama. They’ve been stockpiling all their slime and their swiftboat ads for Hillary. They don’t have any ammunition against Obama and they know he’ll hand them their asses in November, so Charlie Crist’s interest is purely, nakedly self-serving, especially since he wants to be McCain’s Veep (an especially sweet gig since McCain will probably only be a one term President if he lives even that long).
That’s bullshit. Hillary agreed that the votes in Forida wouldn’t count. All this bullshit I’m hearing from her supporters (and from conservatives who know they can’t beat Obama) that she “only agreed not to campaign” is disingenuous, bullshit sophistry. She never said she wanted the votes to count until she started losing.
And Obama certainly had the right to take the DNC at its word that Florida wouldn’t count.
By the way, you’re wrong about Crist supporting a do over.
The morally crippled Governor just wants to seat the delegates from the mock election for the same transparently conniving, self-serving reasons I stated above.
Because seating the results of the primaries that were conducted would be complete bullshit. They didn’t count. Everybody agreed they didn’t count. You don’t get to say “Oh, we changed our minds, those votes count now, and if you didn’t vote because you knew it was pointless, fuck you.” Allowing the results of a contest with one entrant to have an effect on the whole race is complete nonsense.
You know, I trust, that you are perilously close to accusing him of cynical partisanship? Of course you realize, this means “whore”?
Exactly. And that’s what I was talking about. If you allow one candidate to say, “Let’s not count the delegates - unless it’s clear I would have won them. Then let’s have another primary and a do-over”, you’re essentially stacking the deck to give that candidate a 2:1 advantage.
You set the rules. You get everyone to agree to them. Then you don’t change them after the fact if you don’t like the result.
Yep. Anything else is unfair to Obama. Or for that matter, if it subsequently looks like Obama needs those delegates to push him over the top, and the polls favor him in Florida and therefore he supports another election, it’s unfair to Hillary.
Thanks for the correction.
Now let me correct you
Way back in January before there even was a Florida vote, Hillary said
No, there should not be a do-over. It is possible that my opinion is colored by the fact that Obama would probably lose those primaries – I admit it, there’s something about Clinton that rubs me the wrong way, viscerally; I don’t wish her any specific harm, but nor do I wish her well.
That said, I still think it’s a really stupid idea. It makes it seem like the Democrats have no idea what they’re doing. It paints the DNC as impotent, and opens the door to an orgy of front-loaded primaries. Should Obama wind up losing the nomination, it gives him grounds to claim (quite reasonably) that Clinton’s win was illegitimate, the result of back-room machinations by the party elite to get their preferred candidate, even if it means breaking the agreed-upon rules.
Granted, they probably shouldn’t have barred the Florida and Michigan delegates in the first place, but can you guys not see how reversing that strategy now would be unjust? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
A sports analogy – you can skip it, but I am curious to get a some reactions by people in favor of a do-over: Your football team is winning a playoff game by 10 points going into the 4th Quarter against a heavy favorite – at this point, the shorter the game, the more chance your team has to win.
Before the start of the quarter, however, the commissioner comes onto the field and declares that he’s decided that halftime is boring and should be replaced by a 5th “quarter” . . . and that, furthermore, the two teams are now going to go back and play that extra period before the start of the 4th Quarter. He says he’s not making this decision to help the team that’s trailing, that that’s merely incidental – he just wants make the football game better for everyone. Even if you think he might be telling the truth, are you not outraged? Why should that upset you if re-doing Florida and Michigan does not?
Yeah, well thanks, but I still don’t think it matters. The voters and the other candidates were still operating under the assumption that it wouldn’t count.
But so? Why does this mean that the people of the State don’t get their votes counted? The people didn’t agree to this.
Overall, Hillary has more popular votes than Obama has. Obama is only ahead ue to the odd way delegates are apportioned (Caucuses, small states getting more delegates than their population would normally account for, etc), not due to his popular support with “the people”.
Sure, Obama needs less SuperDelegates, and that’s right there in my numbers. But even CNN did the math- neither Candidate, neither Clinton OR Obama can win outright without SuperDelegates now. In other words, if Hillary can only win by “cheating” then that’s the only way Obama can win too. NEITHER CANDIDATE CAN WIN NOW WITHOUT SUPERDELEGATES.
So, DtC- who’s “the cheater” now?
It’s not analogous to that at all. It’s more analogous to having your team qualify for the New Mexico Bowl, a bowl that means basically nothing. The coaches decide to play their juniors and sophomores to give them a bit of bowl experience for next season, where they’re hoping to make the Rose Bowl. At halftime, the commissioner comes out and says, “Hey, guess what guys! This is really the equivalent of this year’s Rose Bowl. The winner gets first place in the BCS, and the halfback gets the Heisman!”.
It doesn’t matter what the commish says, in either situation. But I’m sure we can both agree that the coach that chose to put in their second string (making voters vote uncommitted instead of their actual name*) was at a severe disadvantage.
*And, going back to reality, she still only won by 15% in Michigan versus uncommitted. I’d bet somebody who doesn’t Google the answer $10 that that was within 5 points of the largest vote ever received in a Democratic primary. And an extra $10 (which has to be agreed upon before the bet is verified and cited) that it’s the smallest ‘winning’ margin a Democratic primary has ever had against Mr. Uncommitted.