Have the Reps already won MI and FL?

Great Debates
1

Candidate McCain is running against either HRC or Obama (but it works better with Obama)
Rather than attacking the demo candidate in Michigan and Florida, the Reps attack the party basically saying “They don’t care about your right to vote. We do” in an obvious allusion to those two states having their delegates barred from the DNC.

  1. Would that strategy work?
  2. If so, could the Dems still win losing those 44 votes (in effect minimizing the slam-dunk that is California)
  3. If the Dems lose MI and FL and thereby lose the election, who takes the fall and resigns? Howard “RRRAAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRRR” Dean? Someone else?
2
  1. No. Most people are going to vote for the person they’d like to see run the country, not throw it to the other guy just to punish the party bosses.
  2. Yes. Sure it would be harder, but not impossible.
  3. If we manage to lose this one for any reason, Dean is toast.
3

Purely anecdotal, but most people I know in Michigan aren’t angry with democrats in general as much as they are angry that the state government has managed to screw up something else. There was a lot of money spent to move the primary up and the state isn’t flush with cash. They were also warned that they would lose the right to seat delegates in advance and decided to forge ahead anyway.

So in answer to your questions

1)Not really. Again, Michigan made it’s own mess. The DNC didn’t make it for them.
2)No clue.
3)The only people that really deserve to take the fall for this rest in Lansing, and they may. There is a lot of dissatisfaction in Michigan right now with regards to our government (on both sides).

4

So the people in Michigan believe that the party should make the rules and not the state that obviously pays for it? What about the Dems in Florida? Do they feel the same?

5

It’d be closer to say that we’re used to our government fucking things up so the primary fiasco is just one more. Basically we’re angrier at our own government for making the DNC punish us than we are at the DNC for punishing us. As I said, the DNC let us know exactly what would happen should we push the primary ahead and a fair amount of citizens were against the idea because of the costs involved in moving the primary up and the inability to seat delegates. The state government didn’t listen to anyone and was fairly punished.

6

In Florida, I think it was the Republicans that moved the primaries, but it is the Democrats that have punished us for it.

More importantly, during the General Election, the Republican slime-bags have put an anti-gay marriage amendment to try and draw their “base” to the polls.

And McCain did quite well here and will most likely carry the heavy senior vote. (“He seems like such a nice young man”)
Hillary might win the state, but I doubt that Barack can. But I do believe the Dems can win the GE and not carry Florida.

7

Will people really be thinking about the primaries when they in November? I don’t think so.

8

Because of the primary results, Obama would have to campaign a little harder in Michigan and a little harder still in Florida than he would have otherwise. But he could still take them. Clinton wouldn’t need to do even that.

9

The states of Michigan and Florida pay for the Democratic National Convention? How generous of them.

10

Finally I understand the essence of this situation. Republican controlled legislatures moved up the primaries in Michigan and Florida and their minority Democrats are being punished for it by the national party. Does this make any sense at all???

If anything it cements my understanding that Democrats are prone to self destruction and they don’t give a shit about the rights of states. Even the old goat Kennedy doesn’t give a shit about the wishes of his state given his exhuberant support of Obama.

I can’t be sure about Michigan since Obama wasn’t on the ballot, but if the winner of the number of pledged delegates flips on whether Florida counts or not, there will be hell to pay.

11

Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan and a democrat, was also behind the moving of the primary. No vast right wing conspiracy here.

12

Speaking as a Michigander who voted “uncommitted” on the Democratic side to bitch-slap Hillary:

  1. Would that strategy work?
    No. The average voter doesn’t give a flying fig about whether his state’s delegation is seated at the convention.

  2. If so, could the Dems still win losing those 44 votes (in effect minimizing the slam-dunk that is California)
    Possibly, if Ohio flips the other way and a few mountain states come around.

  3. If the Dems lose MI and FL and thereby lose the election, who takes the fall and resigns? Howard “RRRAAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRRR” Dean? Someone else? It will certainly not be because of the phantom primaries. The legislators in Tallahassee and Lansing are to blame.

13

The legislators in Lansing may be Demcorats (they brought it on themselves) but the legislators in Tallahassee are Republicans. We need new Democratic primaries in those states.

14

Glancing at a list of past DNC chairs, the average tenure seems to be a little more then two years, and the last person to hold it for longer then four left in 1968. I imagine Dean will step down after '09 regardless of the outcome of the elections.

As for the effect of the primary delegate fight on MI and FL races, I doubt they’ll matter. Most people won’t even remember, and those that do will probably be the people most invested in the Dem primary race, the same people who are most likely to really want a Dem president in '09

15

No, it doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t they just have the Democratic convention on a day that was acceptable to the DNC, which could have been on a different day than the Republicans had theirs. New Mexico, for one, has the Dem and Rep primaries on different days (February and June, respectively).