I support their decision to pull the primary ahead. Even if Michigan’s delegates aren’t eventually seated, I still think it was worth it to force a change in the process.
That being said, I would also support whatever it would take to get them seated. Through a re-vote, new primary, caucus, or a waiver from the credentials committee.
Quite right.
And it’s also their fault for supporting a party which is being so intransient about trying to solve this issue. So if they want to vote in the primaries so badly, maybe they shouldn’t vote Democratic.
Much easier than moving to another state, yes?
But it’s only an “issue” because the states chose to move their primaries when they knew it meant they wouldn’t have counted. If the party gives in now, what’s to stop all the states from moving their primaries up to January in 2012?
Don’t look at me. First of all, not my problem; second of all, not what this thread is about; and third of all, I don’t care.
I’m just astonished at the number of Democrats (at least, I assume y’all are Democrats) who are perfectly happy to cede both Michigan and Florida to the Republicans come November. Yea team.
Can you imagine a voter saying “You know, I like that Obama fellow but jeez, our state didn’t get seated at the convention. Guess I gotta vote for McCain now.” ?
No I can’t imagine it.
I can imagine a voter all set to volunteer time and money but becoming so disgusted that they donate neither.
I can imagine a disillusioned voter staying home on Election Day, particularly if they are an elderly sort (like many Florida Democrats, and lots of Michigan Democrats besides.)
Don’t whistle past the graveyard too much here - two states full of pissed off people is tons of trouble for your party. And you know it.
I don’t care how they do it just so long as there’s some kind of active primary campaigning in Florida this year.
We feel neglected.
I am perfectly serious. The democratic leads in the state of Michigan were on TV every day for a week or so prior to the primary telling Obama supporters how to handle the fact that he did not put himself on the ballot.
I would not exactly trust that my mail-in ballot is being counted.
Well, of course not, Mr. Strawman. I would expect everyone who “likes that Obama fellow” to vote for him, assuming they bother to vote. Which is part of the point. As Mr Moto observes, enthusiasm and turnout are important in an election.
Personally, though, I’m more concerned with voters who are on the fence. I can imagine John McCain running a blitzkreig of ads in the fall, essentially saying, “Last January, Barack Obama didn’t even want your vote, while I came to listen to the issues that the people of Michigan care about. In the summer, Barack Obama fought to disenfranchise Michigan, while I fought to bring jobs to the state.” That’s a pretty powerful issue, and one the Democrats seem to be determined to hand McCain on a silver platter.
That’s an interesting read on the situation. I am open to the argument that Obama and Edwards (et al) were playing politics by removing themselves from the MI ballot- of course Clinton would have been favored, etc. For the same reason, Clinton was playing politics by remaining on the ballot.
But the idea of limiting votes to people who voted previously when the entire electorate was, at best, ill-informed the first time around seems dangerous to me. Those Obama supporters, attempting to cast their vote despite the dastardly removal of his name from the ballot by their candidate, were essentailly trusting random people on television that their vote might, someday, count. Somehow. That makes things like the responsibilities of life seem more important than voting for “anybody else”, and it’s my opinion that it led to fewer voters than would otherwise have come out.
…
That wouldn’t work. How many people decided to not show up for the primary, because ‘Hey, my guy’s not on there and it doesn’t even count anyway.’? I thought that the whole point of the redos was to not disenfranchise voters? By only allowing those that voted in the primary that never was, you are disenfranchising a whole ton of voters double time.
I agree. Both my brother in Florida and cousins in Lansing stayed home because they couldn’t vote for Obama - or it wouldn’t count. That’s an infinitesimal cross section but hey it shoudl be stated that this happened, people did actually stay home because they knew their vote wouldn’t count.
On further reflection, I think any voter who did not get a Republican ballot in January should be eligible.
To answer that question, Caucuses typically last several hours, late into the evening, while voting in a Primary seldom takes much over 15 minutes.
Clinton has strong support among people age 60+, but many of them are unwilling/unable to spend hours at a caucus, especially if it ends well after dark. But they will show up and vote in a Primary election.
Then it isn’t a do-over, now is it? I decided to take an R ballot so that I could actually vote for a candidate I could stand, rather than take part in the farce the dems were running.
The public story was all about getting the spotlight on Mich’s unique problems and the money that would be spent here. But really, now, what are Granholm’s options? No Senate seat will be open soon, so by delivering the state to Hillary early in the cycle, getting some momentum behind her, Jen was hoping for a prominent Cabinent spot. It’s all about brown-nosing.
I don’t really see why mail is better than caucuses, and if a state doesn’t have a system prepared to handle mail-in votes - I have no idea what that involves, for all I know it’s very easy - then I’d have some questions about the results. They ought to figure something out and try to reduce the damage they did by over-penalizing these states in the first place.
Let’s not hold the voters in FL and MI completely unaccountable here, unless I missed the massive “Call your State Representative and oppose moving up the primary” movements in both states.