PDA

View Full Version : Florida & Michigan - Should the votes count?



mike black
03-07-2008, 10:19 AM
Just wondering what everyone thinks.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 10:26 AM
Should have made this a public vote.

More schmucky Hillaryness is what it is.

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 10:28 AM
I can't vote in the poll. The votes as they stand should not count. Especially in Michigan, where Hilldog ran unopposed. A revote, however, is the best thing for all concerned.

Dr. Hackenbush
03-07-2008, 10:29 AM
Hell no. Everyone who voted in those states should be raising hell with their state reps too. Their state committees screwed over their own voters.

This is especially true in Michigan where the choices in the democratic primary were Hillary Clinton and "uncommitted".

greg donovan
03-07-2008, 10:29 AM
I can't vote in the poll. The votes as they stand should not count. Especially in Michigan, where Hilldog ran unopposed. A revote, however, is the best thing for all concerned.

revote.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:31 AM
They need to redo the votes in both states. The only question is who pays for it. Part of me thinks the party should, but the states are the ones who chose to violate the rules. However, the taxpayers shouldn't be screwed twice over.

Bill Nolan
03-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Either don't count them or have a revote. I would have no problem with either of those courses. To count the votes when there wasn't equal candidate participation would just seem like more Big Democrat Machine shenanigans coronating the Big Machine candidate. That won't go over well.

Foolish Mortal
03-07-2008, 10:35 AM
revote.
The Republicans by the way have also said Florida and Michigan should be given the opportunity for a revote.

Bill!
03-07-2008, 10:38 AM
If they counted the two as is, the party would splinter and be irrepairable for the general election. They need a revote. That's the only way to fix it.

Masculine Todd
03-07-2008, 10:39 AM
Especially in Michigan, where Hilldog ran unopposed. A revote, however, is the best thing for all concerned.

This is the first election I've been able to vote as an American Citizen (in 2004, I was 17 and not a US citizen). I was incredibly elated to partake in this. Then, all I saw was Hillary. I choose not to vote and was incredibly disappointed.

NickT
03-07-2008, 10:40 AM
Was it known that this would happen before they moved them?

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Was it known that this would happen before they moved them?

Michigan and Florida knew full well that their delegates would not count for the convention. However, they decided to go ahead with it because they figured that their delegates would get seated because the contest would be well over before the convention came around.

Patrick J
03-07-2008, 10:45 AM
If they went ahead and just handed those delegates to Hillary then the Democrats might as well pack up their tents and give up in November because doing so would be handing McCain the Presidency on a silver platter.

NickT
03-07-2008, 10:45 AM
Michigan and Florida knew full well that their delegates would not count for the convention. However, they decided to go ahead with it because they figured that their delegates would get seated because the contest would be well over before the convention came around.
Then I say they leave them. They knew what would happen, they did it anyway.

RickLM
03-07-2008, 10:46 AM
The votes in Michigan can't count, because Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. Surely Hillary's numbers would have been different if she was facing opponents, and if Democrats had not been told that their primary was going to be unrecognized. Some Dems stayed home, some voted non-committal, and some of us voted in the Repub primary instead.

They need to either have a do-over, or simply give the nomination to whoever wins the majority of the remaining 48 states (plus U.S. territories or whatever they're called).

Steve Marshall
03-07-2008, 10:48 AM
I feel bad that their elected officials screwed over their constituents, but they are the elected officials, so my answer is no, they shouldn't be counted. This wasn't a mistake. Both states were pissed off about their election placement and tried to be cute.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:48 AM
Then I say they leave them. They knew what would happen, they did it anyway.

Yeah, but that decision was made by the state officials. The regular voting people are the ones who got screwed over in the process.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 10:48 AM
Dow we know how much a new vote would cost yet?

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:49 AM
I feel bad that their elected officials screwed over their constituents, but they are the elected officials, so my answer is no, they shouldn't be counted. This wasn't a mistake. Both states were pissed off about their election placement and tried to be cute.

The DNC has already said that Michigan and Florida are more than welcome to redo their primaries. The only catch is that the state has to pay for it. This is where the back and forth complaining comes in.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 10:50 AM
Yeah, but that decision was made by the state officials. The regular voting people are the ones who got screwed over in the process.


Right, but we have a representative democracy, not a pure one.

These are the people they put in power so they should have to live with it.

Unless I am missing something.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:51 AM
Dow we know how much a new vote would cost yet?

Cost may be a barrier to holding new elections. During a meeting Wednesday among House Democrats from Florida and Michigan, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida relayed estimates that another primary would cost the state between $22 million and $24 million, a vote-by-mail contest would cost at least $8 million and the bill for a caucus would be about $4 million, said Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Then I say they leave them. They knew what would happen, they did it anyway.

The problem is that those delegates might be what keeps either Hillary or Obama from reaching the magic number before haggling at the convention. Alot of Democrats feel it's in the party's best interest to have a nominee as soon as possible.

NickT
03-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Yeah, but that decision was made by the state officials. The regular voting people are the ones who got screwed over in the process.
I agree, and it sucks for them, but you have to make a stance.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 10:53 AM
Right, but we have a representative democracy, not a pure one.

These are the people they put in power so they should have to live with it.

Unless I am missing something.

So are you saying that there shouldn't be a do-over election at all? Or just that the first votes shouldn't count?

The Dean
03-07-2008, 10:54 AM
Revote.

Bill Nolan
03-07-2008, 10:54 AM
Alot of Democrats feel it's in the party's best interest to have a nominee as soon as possible.

Too late.

sonnylarue
03-07-2008, 10:55 AM
Revote

Ryan F
03-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Yeah, I'm for a revote.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Michigan and Florida knew full well that their delegates would not count for the convention. However, they decided to go ahead with it because they figured that their delegates would get seated because the contest would be well over before the convention came around.

This is true.

I was reading about it as it all played out down here.

They had fair enough warning, but didn't take it seriously because they wanted to be more important than the rest of the states and didn't want to wait their turn.

They got what was coming to them, and now since it's a deadheat, they decided to get all pissy about it.

If they do, do a revote:

BOTH Democtratic candidates have to campaign down here.

And since the both parties want the revote, they should split the bill down the middle, rather than put it on the taxpayers.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 10:56 AM
So are you saying that there shouldn't be a do-over election at all? Or just that the first votes shouldn't count?


If the party wants to hold the election again that is completely up to them. If the cost of the new election has to be carried by anybody other than those affected then I would so no.

Steve Marshall
03-07-2008, 10:57 AM
The DNC has already said that Michigan and Florida are more than welcome to redo their primaries. The only catch is that the state has to pay for it. This is where the back and forth complaining comes in.

I know. What was the price tag? Around 18-20 million for each state, right? I think they aren't going to do it unless the DNC pops for it because they don't want to piss off their taxpayers. I really don't want to see the DNC cave, because this was huge act of pettiness from both states.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 10:58 AM
I really don't want to see the DNC cave, because this was huge act of pettiness from both states?

It was, very much so down here.

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 10:59 AM
This is true.

I was reading about it as it all played out down here.

They had fair enough warning, but didn't take it seriously because they wanted to be more important than the rest of the states and didn't want to wait their turn.

They got what was coming to them, and now since it's a deadheat, they decided to get all pissy about it.

If they do, do a revote:

BOTH Democtratic candidates have to campaign down here.

And since the both parties want the revote, they should split the bill down the middle, rather than put it on the taxpayers.

AND it should be a full-on primary. No end-runs. Regardless of who has the edge in primaries and caucuses, you need only to look at the numbers to see that not as many people get to vote in caucuses.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:00 AM
AND it should be a full-on primary. No end-runs. Regardless of who has the edge in primaries and caucuses, you need only to look at the numbers to see that not as many people get to vote in caucuses.

We don't have a caucus down here.

Not that I'm aware of anyway.

It's a full primary I believe.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 11:01 AM
Is there any talk of ousting the people behind the decision to push up the dates?

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 11:02 AM
We don't have a caucus down here.

Not that I'm aware of anyway.

It's a full primary I believe.

I know there was some talk about Michigan and Florida doing caucuses for the revote if it came to that, because it was cheaper and quicker to organize.

Either way, this whole thing is the best political theater in a generation. :)

mkecub
03-07-2008, 11:03 AM
This does go to a larger issue of scheduling primaries. I do kind of understand the point that Michigan and Florida were trying to make. Why should tiny little states like New Hampshire and Iowa get to have the first crack at the presidential candidates? I think that there should be one day when everybody can start their voting. That would allow us to have as close to a national primary as possible. If some states want to hold back, that's fine.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 11:04 AM
I know there was some talk about Michigan and Florida doing caucuses for the revote if it came to that, because it was cheaper and quicker to organize.

Either way, this whole thing is the best political theater in a generation. :)


And it is the Democrats doing to boot. That has to make you the happiest boy on the play ground Ray.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 11:05 AM
I know there was some talk about Michigan and Florida doing caucuses for the revote if it came to that, because it was cheaper and quicker to organize.

Either way, this whole thing is the best political theater in a generation. :)

Florida always has to be involved in some political drama or another. :no:

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:05 AM
I know there was some talk about Michigan and Florida doing caucuses for the revote if it came to that, because it was cheaper and quicker to organize.

Either way, this whole thing is the best political theater in a generation. :)

Huh.

I haven't heard about the idea of a caucus for the revote. I'll have to keep my eyes open when I go through the news.

If anyone else in Flordia has any news of it, I would be grateful. :)

Quicker is not one of Florida's stongsuits. ;)

Jason California
03-07-2008, 11:05 AM
Who are the 2 people that voted yes?

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:06 AM
Florida always has to be involved in some political drama or another. :no:

Yeah...

I can't believe I was dragged down here.

I kept on complaining that we were moving to the state that couldn't even run the 2000 elections right. :no:

At least you have one responsible person down here guys. :)

Bill Nolan
03-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Who are the 2 people that voted yes?

Bendis has got to be one of them... :mistrust:

Roman Noodles
03-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Unless it involves a revote, No, it shouldn't count.

Foolish Mortal
03-07-2008, 11:08 AM
This does go to a larger issue of scheduling primaries. I do kind of understand the point that Michigan and Florida were trying to make. Why should tiny little states like New Hampshire and Iowa get to have the first crack at the presidential candidates? I think that there should be one day when everybody can start their voting. That would allow us to have as close to a national primary as possible. If some states want to hold back, that's fine.
Having one big national primary would make it difficult for candidates to campaign in each state. Having them in small bunches stretched out over several months is less stressful.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:09 AM
Is there any talk of ousting the people behind the decision to push up the dates?

I think I have heard some rumbling about that, but nothing lately. A lot of people were pissed with the people losing the delegates.

The paper we have here sucks in terms of news, so I have a hard time getting a good idea of what goes on in this state, much less the rest of the world.

I'm going to have to do a bit more of a search see if anything new came up.

RickLM
03-07-2008, 11:10 AM
If both states have a do-over, will Rush Limbaugh urge Repubs to show up and vote for Hillary? That's one of my concerns with Michigan, where we have open primaries. When both parties are voting the same day, you don't have that problem as much.

I really wonder if Hillary will win Michigan. Our economy is even worse than Ohio, and the "Obama has no plan" rhetoric might play well up here, since people are so desperate. I think he needs to come up with some economic specifics that differentiate him from Hillary.

NickT
03-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Having one big national primary would make it difficult for candidates to campaign in each state. Having them in small bunches stretched out over several months is less stressful.
Call it practice for November ;)


I do think they should have a better system. Some states having power over the others beyond votes seems wrong to me.

What about if it was over 2-4 days spread out over a couple of months?

mkecub
03-07-2008, 11:13 AM
Having one big national primary would make it difficult for candidates to campaign in each state. Having them in small bunches stretched out over several months is less stressful.

But typically the contests are over before half the states had a chance to vote. Just look at the Republican side this year. It is especially important on their side because so many states have winner take all primaries.

RickLM
03-07-2008, 11:14 AM
Is there any talk of ousting the people behind the decision to push up the dates?


I haven't heard anything like this in Michigan. I believe the governor and most of the state's top Dems were gung-ho on the idea, so there's lots of blame to go around. Usually these people are too powerful to get rid of.

I think the GOP handled this better. They said that even though Michigan and Florida jumped the gun, they would still treat the results as legit. I don't understand why Howard Dean and the DNC got so legalistic about it.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 11:16 AM
I think I have heard some rumbling about that, but nothing lately. A lot of people were pissed with the people losing the delegates.

That paper we have here sucks in terms of news, so I have a hard time getting a good idea of what goes on in this state, much less the rest of the world.

I'm going to have to do a bit more of a search see if anything new came up.


If your states are not willing to get rid of the people that made this mess up then I see no reason for a revote.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 11:16 AM
If both states have a do-over, will Rush Limbaugh urge Repubs to show up and vote for Hillary? That's one of my concerns with Michigan, where we have open primaries. When both parties are voting the same day, you don't have that problem as much.

I really wonder if Hillary will win Michigan. Our economy is even worse than Ohio, and the "Obama has no plan" rhetoric might play well up here, since people are so desperate. I think he needs to come up with some economic specifics that differentiate him from Hillary.

I don't want to give any credit to Rush, but I do think that the last person who wants to see the redone primaries is Obama. He has to say that he wants democracy to happen, but like you said, Michigan will likely be very similar to Ohio, and Florida already went to Hillary once and probably will again.

Steve Marshall
03-07-2008, 11:18 AM
This does go to a larger issue of scheduling primaries. I do kind of understand the point that Michigan and Florida were trying to make. Why should tiny little states like New Hampshire and Iowa get to have the first crack at the presidential candidates? I think that there should be one day when everybody can start their voting. That would allow us to have as close to a national primary as possible. If some states want to hold back, that's fine.

The problem with this would be a lack of time and resources on everyone's part. The system now allows the candidate to be able continuously be bringing in money for their campaign, and focus largely on the states that have primaries coming up. Some candidates wouldn't be able to campaign in all 50 states even close to simultaneously, giving an even bigger edge to those with a ton of cash behind them.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:20 AM
I think the GOP handled this better. They said that even though Michigan and Florida jumped the gun, they would still treat the results as legit. I don't understand why Howard Dean and the DNC got so legalistic about it.

Yeah, down here the Republicans lost half of the delegates, whereas the Democrats got all of them scrapped.

mkecub
03-07-2008, 11:20 AM
The problem with this would be a lack of time and resources on everyone's part. The system now allows the candidate to be able continuously bring in money for their campaign. Some candidates wouldn't be able to campaign in all 50 states nearly simultaneously, giving an even bigger edge to those with a ton of cash behind them.

I think the big cash thing works both ways. If a candidate doesn't perform well in those first few states, then he/she is pretty much done, i.e. Giuliani. The money and support dried up very quickly even though there is a good chance he would have performed better in some other states.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 11:23 AM
If your states are not willing to get rid of the people that made this mess up then I see no reason for a revote.

To be honest, we just had an election down here. The movement, I think, started shortly after that once they got put in. So the next chance we get, might be this upcoming November at the earliest and that's only for some of them.

I would hope it would be brought up with those campaigns.

ToadRunner
03-07-2008, 11:23 AM
Nope. The officials moved up the date against the rules and held the election under the pretense that the results wouldn't count.

Of course, this is politics, so it's very possible that the people responsible don't take the blame, so a re-vote is probably in the best interests of the Democrats.

Mister Mets
03-07-2008, 12:16 PM
The poll's flawed, given the numerous positions one could take. I admit that I'm biased here, as a Republican enjoying Democrats in a lose-lose position in two swing states.

You could argue that the votes shouldn't count and there should be no revote. The DNC made its decision. They should stick to it no matter what (this is the favorite position of Republicans.)

You could argue that the votes should count as is. In the case of Michigan, you could claim that Obama's decision to not have his name on the ballot and follow the advice of the DNC reflected poor judgement on his part, so he should be punished for it.

You could argue that only Florida should count or have a revote, because the Republican governor and Republican controlled state legislature were responsible for the early primary (the state Democrats agreed to the deal in exchange for paper records.)

You could argue that it's essential to have new primaries (or caucuses) in Florida and Michigan, so as not to disenfranchise swing state voters, but then there's the question of who pays the bills.

Meanwhile, Republicans halved the number of delegates to win a candidate would win in Florida and Michigan, and both states played a key role in the primaries (Michigan gave Romney a shot, Florida established McCain as the clear front-runner.)

Granted, as a Republican I'm happy with the probability that Hillary and Obama will fight until these two primaries, giving McCain a few months head start in the general election.

RebootedCorpse
03-07-2008, 12:50 PM
GREENVILLE -- Governor Jennifer Granholm said Thursday she opposes another state-funded Democratic presidential primary this year in Michigan.

"One thing I do not want to see is any taxpayer-funded re-do," she said after touring a new United Solar Ovonic plant. "Is there a private source of revenue?"

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is urging Michigan and Florida party officials to come up with plans to repeat their contests so state delegates can be counted in the close race.

Governor Granholm said she does not disagree, but "it would have to be a primary-like election, probably on a Saturday."

Granholm also told WJR radio in Detroit that the tab for a May or June election run by the Michigan Democratic Party could approach $10 million. She warned the cost and logistics could be insurmountable.

"Who's willing to write a check for $10 million?" Granholm asked.

An election designed for 1 million voters or more would require 1,000 polling places. Sites would have to be selected, workers organized and ballots formulated in just eight weeks.

"The logistics of this are mind-boggling," Granholm said.

Howard Dean said national party coffers aren't going to finance new elections in either Michigan or Florida.

"We can't afford to do that," he said. "That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race."

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all 156 delegates to the national convention as punishment for moving its primary to Jan. 15 in violation of party rules.

Those rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5. Florida was hit with a similar penalty for its Jan. 29 primary.

Governor Granholm is backing Hillary Clinton, whose campaign long has called for the Jan. 15 results to be honored. Barack Obama's campaign opposes that.

Michigan's Jan. 15 primary divvied up 128 pledged delegates to the Denver convention.

Clinton, who did not campaign in the state but left her name on the ballot, was awarded 73 delegates in the Jan. 15 primary. Barack Obama, who took his name off the ballot, did not receive any delegates, although the "uncommitted" vote -- largely considered support for him -- amounted to 55 delegates.

Four uncommitted superdelegates from Michigan, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, DNC member Debbie Dingell and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, will attempt to negotiate a compromise, Granholm said.

Granholm and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, issued a statement Wednesday saying their states' delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Dean said the only alternative to another election is a successful appeal by Michigan to a credentials committee that would recommend to the full convention that Michigan delegates be seated.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 01:00 PM
The Democratic Party only has 3 million dollars on hand. They really can't pay for this even if they wanted to.

Shepherd
03-07-2008, 01:16 PM
I can't vote in the poll. The votes as they stand should not count. Especially in Michigan, where Hilldog ran unopposed. A revote, however, is the best thing for all concerned.

I'm amazed I'm saying this (especially in a political thread), but I agree with Ray.

R

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 01:17 PM
You could argue that only Florida should count or have a revote, because the Republican governor and Republican controlled state legislature were responsible for the early primary (the state Democrats agreed to the deal in exchange for paper records).

For those interested:

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/092507/met_202543876.shtml


Florida Democratic leaders ready to sue

Democratic National Committee is asked to lift sanctions against state.

By BETH KORMANIK, The Times-Union

Florida's Democratic congressional delegation would support a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee if it strips the state of its convention delegates, U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown said Monday.
Brown's comments came at a news conference in front of the Duval County Supervisor of Elections Office in which the chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party and other local Democratic officials affirmed their support for the Jan. 29 presidential primary against the wishes of the national committee.

"We are prepared to go to court," Brown said.

State Chairwoman Karen Thurman said the party itself would not pursue a lawsuit.

The Democratic National Committee has warned it will take away Florida's 210 delegates to the 2008 convention in Denver if the primary is held before Feb. 5.

Only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are allowed to hold primaries before then.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., asked the DNC to lift those sanctions by the end of the day Monday to "avoid a legal challenge."

Despite the possible sanctions, Florida Democrats do not want to change the primary because of other issues on the Jan. 29 ballot - most important, a constitutional amendment to lower property taxes. The state's top Republicans support the measure while Democrats oppose it.

But that strategy was undermined when late Monday, a Leon County judge threw out the amendment, ruling that its wording was too confusing, according to the Associated Press.

Florida's Republican-dominated Legislature approved the new primary date over objections from Democrats. Many Democrats still voted for the bill because it contained other provisions such as a paper trail for all voting machines, according to state Rep. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville.

Florida Democrats made a similar announcement Sunday in Pembroke Pines.

The purpose of Monday's event was to introduce the Web site www.makeitcountflorida.com and to motivate Democrats to vote in the primary even though national party leaders have said it essentially would be meaningless.

Presidential candidates also have signed pledges not to campaign in Florida.

State Rep. Terry Fields, D-Jacksonville, compared the treatment to the election fiasco in 2000, when hanging chads and other voting irregularities disqualified thousands of votes.

"There needs to be a strong message sent to the national party," he said Monday. "We are not to be taken for granted."



It helps to flesh out what went on down here.

Mister Mets
03-07-2008, 01:34 PM
The Democratic Party only has 3 million dollars on hand. They really can't pay for this even if they wanted to.
This is the one place Republicans have the advantage in fund-raising.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 01:35 PM
This is the one place Republicans have the advantage in fund-raising.


They have what 22 million?

mike black
03-07-2008, 02:16 PM
I feel bad that their elected officials screwed over their constituents, but they are the elected officials, so my answer is no, they shouldn't be counted. This wasn't a mistake. Both states were pissed off about their election placement and tried to be cute.

You do realize it was an attempt to further seat two power house General Election state further up in the primary process to help make the states more viable? The Democrats fucked up buy saying "No delegates from these states will count!" Where as the Republicans atleast counted half the votes.

mike black
03-07-2008, 02:21 PM
GREENVILLE -- Governor Jennifer Granholm said Thursday she opposes another state-funded Democratic presidential primary this year in Michigan.

"One thing I do not want to see is any taxpayer-funded re-do," she said after touring a new United Solar Ovonic plant. "Is there a private source of revenue?"

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is urging Michigan and Florida party officials to come up with plans to repeat their contests so state delegates can be counted in the close race.

Governor Granholm said she does not disagree, but "it would have to be a primary-like election, probably on a Saturday."

Granholm also told WJR radio in Detroit that the tab for a May or June election run by the Michigan Democratic Party could approach $10 million. She warned the cost and logistics could be insurmountable.

"Who's willing to write a check for $10 million?" Granholm asked.

An election designed for 1 million voters or more would require 1,000 polling places. Sites would have to be selected, workers organized and ballots formulated in just eight weeks.

"The logistics of this are mind-boggling," Granholm said.

Howard Dean said national party coffers aren't going to finance new elections in either Michigan or Florida.

"We can't afford to do that," he said. "That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race."

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all 156 delegates to the national convention as punishment for moving its primary to Jan. 15 in violation of party rules.

Those rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5. Florida was hit with a similar penalty for its Jan. 29 primary.

Governor Granholm is backing Hillary Clinton, whose campaign long has called for the Jan. 15 results to be honored. Barack Obama's campaign opposes that.

Michigan's Jan. 15 primary divvied up 128 pledged delegates to the Denver convention.

Clinton, who did not campaign in the state but left her name on the ballot, was awarded 73 delegates in the Jan. 15 primary. Barack Obama, who took his name off the ballot, did not receive any delegates, although the "uncommitted" vote -- largely considered support for him -- amounted to 55 delegates.

Four uncommitted superdelegates from Michigan, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, DNC member Debbie Dingell and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, will attempt to negotiate a compromise, Granholm said.

Granholm and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, issued a statement Wednesday saying their states' delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Dean said the only alternative to another election is a successful appeal by Michigan to a credentials committee that would recommend to the full convention that Michigan delegates be seated.

I can't believe that they all agree that the states won't count, Hillary starts to lose, and wants them counted - So the fucking DNC bows down before her to get it done.

Fuck her.

mlpeters
03-07-2008, 04:37 PM
Cost may be a barrier to holding new elections. During a meeting Wednesday among House Democrats from Florida and Michigan, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida relayed estimates that another primary would cost the state between $22 million and $24 million, a vote-by-mail contest would cost at least $8 million and the bill for a caucus would be about $4 million, said Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

Well, Michigan is pretty much flat broke. Howard Dean said the states were allowed to raise soft money to pay for the re-vote, which could work, I guess, but the state of Michigan can't pay.

If we don't get a re-vote, I say don't count any of our votes. I had to vote "uncommitted" (though I damned well was committed) and I know most other Obama supporters simply stayed home. Our Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm, wants the cast votes counted, with no re-vote, but then she's a hard-core Hillary Clinton supporter. When asked whether it would be unfair to Obama, her attitude seems to be, "tough -- who took his name off the ballot?" (my take on her answer -- NOT her actual words).

This whole thing leaves me feeling disenfranchised and majorly pissed.

GelfXIII
03-07-2008, 04:41 PM
1. No.
2. Hell no.
3. Can we give Florida back to the Spanish now?

Nick Spencer
03-07-2008, 04:45 PM
The Republicans by the way have also said Florida and Michigan should be given the opportunity for a revote.

Gosh, that's awful nice of them. I wonder why?

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 05:06 PM
Gosh, that's awful nice of them. I wonder why?

Actually, without a revote, this might get even worse. Hillary suing to seat the delegates, Superdelegates choosing the nominee while two major states sit out...it'll be ugly.

It's in everyone's best interests for the revote to happen. And hell, you've been swearing up and down that Michigan is Obama country(and the polls show he definitely has a chance). That just might seal the deal for him.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 05:13 PM
I can't believe that they all agree that the states won't count, Hillary starts to lose, and wants them counted - So the fucking DNC bows down before her to get it done.

Fuck her.

That is because Hillary is a cunt.

If I am not allowed to say that i will edit it. I really feel that way about that woman. God I dislike her with a passion and have never even met her.

Jason California
03-07-2008, 05:16 PM
Actually, without a revote, this might get even worse. Hillary suing to seat the delegates, Superdelegates choosing the nominee while two major states sit out...it'll be ugly.

It's in everyone's best interests for the revote to happen. And hell, you've been swearing up and down that Michigan is Obama country(and the polls show he definitely has a chance). That just might seal the deal for him.


It is not in everyones best interest. They knew the reprecusions of changing their date and went with it anyways. Hillary knew the situation before the vote. Now they want to change things after the fact. Life is not supposed to work that way.

I feel bad for the people who lost their vote but they need to deal with this and punish their representatives for it.

Ray G.
03-07-2008, 05:27 PM
It is not in everyones best interest. They knew the reprecusions of changing their date and went with it anyways. Hillary knew the situation before the vote. Now they want to change things after the fact. Life is not supposed to work that way.

I feel bad for the people who lost their vote but they need to deal with this and punish their representatives for it.

This is so much bigger than the people of Florida and Michigan. Thanks to these two states, we're in a deadlock that's going to be very hard for the Democrats to break.

The states need to suck it up, pay for the primaries, and get this show on the road.

Drkemerld73
03-07-2008, 05:32 PM
This is so much bigger than the people of Florida and Michigan. Thanks to these two states, we're in a deadlock that's going to be very hard for the Democrats to break.

The states need to suck it up, pay for the primaries, and get this show on the road.

Well it's not our fault that Obama decided to be popular and didn't lose like he was supposed to. ;)