[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
But as I said before - you need those Democrats in those states to man the phone banks and lit drops. Hard to turn them out on a Saturday morning if they’re pissed off.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, don’t worry about that. No matter which candidate gets the nom or how, he/she will have plenty of eager campaign volunteers in Florida! Because we’re a lot more pissed off at the Republicans than we are at our own state party, or the national party, or HRC or Obama or anyone else.
I love the irony of the fact that if MI and FL moved their primaries to try and have more influence over the nomination process, yet if they hadn’t moved them at all they would’ve been hugely influential.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan are plenty pissed off - and if a situation develops where their votes would have been decisive, they will be more pissed off. You cannot afford to have two states worth of pissed off voters this year in your party - if they are pissed off at you.
[/quote]
Obama’s currently running ahead of McCain in Michigan; Hillary’s trailing. Last time I looked, in FL, Hillary’s ahead of McCain, and Obama’s trailing.
So, who’s pissed? Hardly anybody. You’d like somebody to be pissed, but few people really give a good goddamn.
I’m quaking in my boots.
Longer (and improved!) Mr. Moto, courtesy of the Kaiser Chiefs.
Umm, no. Obama has much blame in the Fla mess, and it will bite him in the ass, come November.
"*Crucially, Team Obama doesn’t want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let’s note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama’s current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far – a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point – and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,208 needed to win. Add those states’ votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton’s popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.
The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there.
Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp’s reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama’s supporters conducted a stealth “uncommitted” campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted.
Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.” (Obama himself, it’s important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)
Instead, Obama’s campaign has tendered the startling proposal that he arbitrarily be allotted half of the votes already cast in Michigan and Florida. Of course, a large number of these votes – more than a quarter of a million in Florida alone – were not cast for Obama. He simply proposes that the party add these votes to his total, as though they were rightfully his. Saying that votes already cast for other candidates should go to him is a bold power grab, worthy of the Chicago machine organizations that claimed the votes of the recently deceased, their names gleaned from the voting rolls. By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters. Obama can no more lay claim to them legitimately than his supporters can declare he has won the nomination before the remaining primaries take place. "*
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I am not saying that there wasn’t fault in Florida and Michigan as well - but the penalty was too strict from the outset.
[/QUOTE]
It clearly wasn’t strict enough.
Maybe if the DNC had said they’d take the delegates out and shoot them behind the bar, then they would’ve listened.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
It clearly wasn’t strict enough.
Maybe if the DNC had said they’d take the delegates out and shoot them behind the bar, then they would’ve listened.
[/QUOTE]
But the Dems don’t get that aggressive. Take them out behind the bar and wave a sternly worded letter at them is about as tough as they get. Then they’d apologize for possibly hurting their feelings.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Story here.
The only way the “legitimacy” of the Dem nominee will be in question is if the losing candidate questions it, publicly and repeatedly, even after the Convention.
That’s not going to be you doing that, is it? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t a new battle cry taken up by HRC. She said the same thing during her exclusive Faux News interview. I guess she has resorted to recycling her dubious and nefarious arguments against an Obama nomination. :sigh:
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Umm, no. Obama has much blame in the Fla mess, and it will bite him in the ass, come November.
"*Crucially, Team Obama doesn’t want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let’s note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama’s current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far – a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point – and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,208 needed to win. Add those states’ votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton’s popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t place any credence in the argument against the Democratic primary process or decision to exclude Florida and Michigan, especially not in this election. It is easy to say circumstances would be different if the rules were different, but the rules are the rules that both candidates agreed to follow before campaigning. Both Candidates knew that Michigan and Florida were excluded. The time to voice any objections to the process was before the primary.
Clinton may well be in the lead or positioned in a tighter race with Florida and Michigan votes. After all, she was the only name on the ballot in Michigan and had name recognition without a healthy competition in Florida. Moreover, Obama should rightfully dismiss any attempts to revote using private money, which is exactly what Clinton proposed. Hell, every American should be against any voting process that is privately funded by the candidates.
Clinton’s outrage about Florida and Michigan is a political ploy. She knows a do over in those states will not happen. What does she gain by questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination? This is poor sportsmanship and calculated spin.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Obama’s currently running ahead of McCain in Michigan; Hillary’s trailing. Last time I looked, in FL, Hillary’s ahead of McCain, and Obama’s trailing.
So, who’s pissed? Hardly anybody. You’d like somebody to be pissed, but few people really give a good goddamn.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the OP seems to be pissed. He lives in FL.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, the OP seems to be pissed. He lives in FL.
[/QUOTE]
I’m pissed at the clusterfuck, but, really, I’m only pissed we missed out on the fun of having a primary campaign here; but, then, I’m a political junkie. As a Dem who prefers Obama to Clinton, I suppose I should be pleased with the practical results.