Florida and Michigan voters get stiffed by democrartic party

Okay, the state organizations are going to follow the rules they were aware of at the time they scheduled the primaries. So?

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Okay, the state organizations are going to follow the rules they were aware of at the time they scheduled the primaries. So?

True. However, the question is how will the voter react to being shut out.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

roger wrote:
Okay, the state organizations are going to follow the rules they were aware of at the time they scheduled the primaries. So?

True. However, the question is how will the voter react to being shut out.

The idea this year was to "shut out" every state that voted after Super Tuesday. All those Republican voters were shut out since McCain had the nomination. The idea that all of those voters will switch over to Obama is the same as thinking all the Florida and Michigan voters will switch over to McCain.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

au1929 wrote:
roger wrote:
Okay, the state organizations are going to follow the rules they were aware of at the time they scheduled the primaries. So?

True. However, the question is how will the voter react to being shut out.

The idea this year was to "shut out" every state that voted after Super Tuesday. All those Republican voters were shut out since McCain had the nomination. The idea that all of those voters will switch over to Obama is the same as thinking all the Florida and Michigan voters will switch over to McCain.

Nonsense. McCain won by virtue of capturing a sufficient number of votes making any futher voting irrelavant. Whereas the votes from Florida and Michigan are significant and could impact upon the choice of candidate

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Nonsense. McCain won by virtue of capturing a sufficient number of votes making any futher voting irrelavant. Whereas the votes from Florida and Michigan are significant and could impact upon the choice of candidate

But they didn't know that when they tried to break party rules. For that matter, everyone could have voted in the Republican primary if they wanted their vote to count. The reality is that the primary system routinely makes "further voting irrelevant." Usually, those of us in NC don't get any say at all in the party nominating process for either party. Similarly, the electoral college makes general election votes irrelevant. If my state goes red, my blue vote is gone. But still, the general election is where you get to vote. Someone who is anti-war is not going to vote for McCain to spite Howard Dean. In November, we will have a clear choice between candidates and everyone can step up to the bar then.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Nonsense. McCain won by virtue of capturing a sufficient number of votes making any futher voting irrelavant. Whereas the votes from Florida and Michigan are significant and could impact upon the choice of candidate

But they didn't know that when they tried to break party rules.

One additional point: What the good politicians in Florida and Michigan were trying to do when they moved up their primaries was to disenfranchise voters in Ohio, Texas, and all the other states who set reasonable dates for their primaries. They were trying to decide the election before the rest of the country could get a shot to hear the candidates. It's hard to feel for them since their plan to stick it to the rest of us backfired.

0 Replies

engineer

You are missing the point. By not counting the ballots cast the outcome as to who will the democratic standard bearer could be affected. I for one will either not vote or holding my nose vote for McCain.
I know many people who feel as I do.

0 Replies

engineer

Disenfrancise Ohio and Texas, Wouldn't the their votes be counted? Crying or Very sad

If fairness is what your looking for all state primaries should be held the same day.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

engineer

You are missing the point. By not counting the ballots cast the outcome as to who will the democratic standard bearer could be affected. I for one will either not vote or holding my nose vote for McCain.
I know many people who feel as I do.

I'm not missing you point, I just disagree with it. I do not agree that the voters of Michigan or Florida are more special than the voters of Ohio or Wisconsin or New Yorkers like you or North Carolinians like me. They thought they were so special that they would tilt the system more in their favor than their size already makes it. They figured they would anoint a front runner prior to Super Tuesday, decide this contest for us, dictate the party nomination. It seems the party had the discipline to represent the entire country instead of just a few big states and all of the candidates agreed. That one is crying foul now is not a surprise, that's politics. So back to your statement, you're voting McCain. There is a clear, clear difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton. Voting in FL or MI doesn't make that difference any more or less significant. McCain has some good points and if you are voting for him, then you are voting for him for more reasons than how the Democratic party set up its nomination process. I'm skeptical of your position if you are claiming that a re-vote in two states, neither of them yours, would magically change your position. Sometimes in our gut, we know how we're going to vote and we just need a pretext for the mind to accept. Maybe this is yours. Personally, I will be voting against the war, against foolish economic policies and against John McCain. I would like to vote for Obama, but if I have to swallow a Clinton vote I will for what I perceive is the good of the country, I will.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

engineer

Disenfrancise Ohio and Texas, Wouldn't the their votes be counted? If fairness is what your looking for all state primaries should be held the same day.

Their votes would be counted, but they wouldn't count. Voting in all states is one solution. The one is like is a staged vote where Iowa, NH and SC are held are three consecutive weeks, followed by blocks of small and large states, culminating in NY, TX, CA and OH. Talk about exciting to the finish!

0 Replies

It aint over.

I'm sure Hillary was hoping for "do-over" primaries in Florida and Michigan, but unless she concedes before the convention, she gets to make her case to the Credentials Committee.

There is virtually no chance that delegates from Florida and Michigan will not be seated. It may be only half of what they would normally garner, but the Democrat Party is not going to alienate the Democrat voters in these two states because "rules are rules!"

Voters in FL and MI are not going to really care about the power struggle between the State and National parties.

Democrats "disenfranchizing" voters? Unbelievable.

It aint over.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It aint over.

I'm sure Hillary was hoping for "do-over" primaries in Florida and Michigan, but unless she concedes before the convention, she gets to make her case to the Credentials Committee.

There is virtually no chance that delegates from Florida and Michigan will not be seated. It may be only half of what they would normally garner, but the Democrat Party is not going to alienate the Democrat voters in these two states because "rules are rules!"

Voters in FL and MI are not going to really care about the power struggle between the State and National parties.

Democrats "disenfranchizing" voters? Unbelievable.

It aint over.

But how would you seat them? Obama did not even compete in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida. The DNC might as well ban them completely and make the point for 2012. My bet is no one violates the rules then.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It aint over.

I'm sure Hillary was hoping for "do-over" primaries in Florida and Michigan, but unless she concedes before the convention, she gets to make her case to the Credentials Committee.

There is virtually no chance that delegates from Florida and Michigan will not be seated. It may be only half of what they would normally garner, but the Democrat Party is not going to alienate the Democrat voters in these two states because "rules are rules!"

Voters in FL and MI are not going to really care about the power struggle between the State and National parties.

Democrats "disenfranchizing" voters? Unbelievable.

It aint over.

But how would you seat them? Obama did not even compete in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida. The DNC might as well ban them completely and make the point for 2012. My bet is no one violates the rules then.

Well, you could be right but I'm betting that the Democratic Party that screams "Voter Disenfranchisment" at the drop of a hat is not about to disnenfranchise the Democratic voters of FL and MI.

If Hillary has her way, the delgates as voted in the primaries will be seated. Barring this, and I doubt that she gets her way, there will be some sort of compromise: 50% of the delgates get seated with prorata shares to Clinton and Obama.

It is is simply unimaginable that the National Party (under pressure from one of its candidates) will piss of voters in the important states of FL and MI to make a point.

But hey, they are Democrats and capable of all sorts of politically suicidal actions.

0 Replies

No, I haven't read the whole thread.

I find it chilling from the point of view of me, let's say I lived in Florida.

I not as sure as Au 1929 that I'd be railing against the national democratic party. I wouldn't, with an asterisk that I at present know no reason not to support a national organization for all states.

I'd have been squealing when it was happening, that my state party was not going to follow the national.

I'll add that I'm for Obama now but surely wasn't always, though never was H. Clinton my main choice. I may vote for her in the future, if she gets the nomination. I'd have to have a tussle with myself to do that. Her camp or the Obama camp views aren't what I'm listening to. I get the DNC's rules and having them meaningful, and I get the individual in Florida who feels run over.

Eyeing Florida, there seem to be problems over some years.

I have other gripes, as I don't like the whole delegate thing, super or plain, but never mind.

0 Replies

The parties have been losing control over the candidates for well over a generation, to where they are now little more than a joint fundraising effort and a caucus group on the Hill. They can't allow themselves to totally lose control of the election process as well. The rules where set out and agreed to by all well in advance, the two states were given lots of warning and told what would happen if they did not follow the rules, there is no way that the parties can allow these states to vote. If they can't hold the line here they will never be taken seriously again.

Billary of course do not give a sh*t what happens to the party, they never have, which is why they have no problem running this game. But they will not get their way.

0 Replies

Michigan and Florida made their beds and now they simply have to lie in it.

0 Replies

On the other hand maybe the DNC will have to lie in that bed. If they want to punish the democratic political machine in these states its OK with me but why disenfranchise the voters. I think a national vote on the same day would be the democratic way to go.

0 Replies

TNR has a column up with the phrase "Democrats' Death March to Denver".

Laughing

Love it.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

On the other hand maybe the DNC will have to lie in that bed. If they want to punish the democratic political machine in these states its OK with me but why disenfranchise the voters. I think a national vote on the same day would be the democratic way to go.

Okay, you're a grumpy old dude, we get it, jeez.

This is the same exact post you've made about a gajillion f*cking times about how pissed you are at the Dems. Well, go vote Republican, and stop whining about things....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Florida and Michigan voters get stiffed by democrartic party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know