Regarding the Michigan move…
I’ll post this Washington Post article again. Michigan Primary Move Splits Democrats
Michigan had agreed to the primary calendar which was voted on a year and a half ago.
New Hampshire was the first to fuck it up when it jumped ahead of Nevada.
Maybe Michigan’s hit some hard times because their voters don’t understand cause and effect. Whose fault is this if not the state of Michigan? Every state wants attention during a national election. Most aren’t lucky enough to be elector-rich swing states like Florida and Michigan.
If a proper primary or caucus happens in either state without a dime from the DNC, then it’d be fine to seat them. Otherwise I say fuck 'em.
Yes and no. The DNC is free to change its rules whenever it wants. It should do what is best for the party-- that’s what it is there for. If changing the rules is best for the party, then they should change the rules. The key is figuring out just what is best for the party, as a whole.
Mainly because it’s not winner take all. It’s a close race, and they will likely split the delegates pretty evenly like they did in other states.
Ironically ,we made the jump to get more relevant. Now if we wait til June Michigan and Fla. could be the deciding states. Worked perfect;y.
New elections in both states would cost about 25 mill. Suggestions have been for both candidates to kick in equally and do it over. Another is to do it by mail.
Yet another reason why the states should stay out of primaries.
I’ve said it a million times, the states have to pay millions of dollars to run elections for a private organization. And then the private organization says, “Fuck you! You need to run it our way!” then states should say, “Fuck you! Run it and pay for it yourself!”
BUT WAIT!!!
That’s asking Republicans and Democrats to not spend TAXPAYER MONEY to run these little private elections for themselves.
That’s because there are superdelegates. Neither candidate is likely to win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, in the remaining primaries and caucuses. But when the superdelegates finally make up their mind, one candidate (obviously) is bound to win.
In Florida, the GOP controlled legislature and Gov Don’t-Worry-Be-Happy are the ones responsible for moving the primary to 1/29.
Sen Nelson has proposed a redo by mail. Since the legislature caused the problem in the first place, it’s only fair for them to pick up the tab.
Obama would have to accept, or come out looking like he doesn’t want all the votes counted.
Why would Obama have to accept, etc.?
I agree with those who say this an unholy mess, but Florida and Michigan both knew what would happen if they moved their primaries up. Since there are so many issues to consider (format, financial, time constraints) why not leave it the way it is? I realize Florida and Michigan voters are disenfranchised but take that up with the state entities who defied the DNC which has the ultimate say-so on which delegates are seated; again, they knew the consequences going in.
In the meantime let the candidates and the national committee work it out behind the scenes* or just wait and let the superdelegates decide at the convention, as agonizing as that might be.
Here’s a take on the math, even with FL & MI being counted in a do-over. Yes, it’s slanted against Hillary, but the math seems sound.
This all seems live the 51.0 do-over game today between the Miami Heat and the Atlanta Hawks.
The math is irrelevant. Punishing the voters for a stupid decision is also wrong…More than that, skipping 2 large states would not provide an honest appraisal. They need to be counted.
Among other considerations in discussing whether do-overs are feasible, the math does matter. I don’t want anyone to be left out either, but if (of course, no one knows) it’s thought that these two states, who knowingly chose to be stripped of their delegates, won’t change or hasten the outcome, it should be part of the equation. This has to be solved practicably and if money can be a consideration, why not the math?
Except for the mention of the Florida legislature and governor above, I’m not sure who made the decision to go ahead and move the dates up. However, during that process and while knowing what the DNC would do, was there any hue and cry from hoi polloi to them regarding disenfranchisement or being punished? Or was it allowed to go through for the perceived glory of “counting more”?
And what Jurph said.
I recall the press and the state saying that there was no way that Dean was not going to seat the delegates. Everyone seemed to think he was going to blink.
I read just the opposite but you might be right. I’ll try to find the cite and post it today or tomorrow.
Even if Dean decides to seat them, I still dont’ think it’s right, given they were told what would happen by the governing body if they did. Some people are saying if Dean/the DNC capitulate some Democratic voters will become disillusioned.
I don’t recall a time when the parties demanded of the states that they hold primaries. The parties opened up the process to give all states the option of doing so, and most states apparently decided they liked that idea.
There’s absolutely nothing preventing states from deciding NOT to hold primaries. A handful of states still don’t.
What’s stupid is when states, knowing the parties’ requirements for counting the results of primaries, hold one in a manner that fails to meet those requirements, then bitches that one of the parties has failed to include the results in its counts.
Maybe the taxpayers of MI and FL should be asking their legislatures just why they decided to waste X millions of dollars on primaries that they knew wouldn’t count. Seems that if anyone ‘punished’ the voters of those states, it’s the legislatures. Maybe the voters should vote the appropriate bums out in November.
They are? The Democrats in the legislature voted against it, did they?
Well, they voted against it before they voted for it:
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Whoever did make the decision,it was not the voters. It is they who would be disenfranchised. I didn’t do anything wrong and I want to decide who wins.
Normally, I’d say that the DNC had set the policy in a clear manner and Florida and Michigan would have to live with the consequences - they held their primaries too early and their delegates won’t be counted. But the ongoing dead heat between Obama and Clinton is damaging both candidates. So I’d say it’s time for a “do-over” and both states should hold new primaries.
So, because it’s convenient for the DNC to violate the democratic process it itself laid out, it should do so?
That’s . . rather placing convenience over morality.
Reminds me of what happened to that poor woman in Florida who stopped the recounts and was blamed for being partisan- despite the fact the state constitution demanded she do as she did.
Also- those complaining that MI and FL won’t matter- if those states were casting deciding ballots, then that would determine which way the superdelegates voted, one would presume. So they should matter in terms of popularity.
Here is my suggestion for a FREE re-vote in those states:
The cost of this re-do election would be minimal…and even the little grey haired ladies in Florida could go to a public library and have someone log in for them and let them vote on-line.