<p>After my candidate (Edwards) suspended his campaign two weeks ago, I spent a weekend of thought regarding which of the remaining Democratic candidates to support. I eventually decided to vote for Obama on February 5; with the continued feeling that I’d be happy to support Clinton if she won the nomination. So I guess I’m sort of new to the back and forth between the remaining candidates, but I was brought up somewhat short this last weekend after a “frank exchange of views” with an enthusiastic Clinton fan about the new (to me, anyway) argument that the Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan should be allowed to vote at the convention even though the National party had ruled that if those states’ parties held their primary’s ahead of the date authorized by the national committee the delegates they selected would not be allowed to vote at the convention. It’s my understanding that the other candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot and didn’t campaign in either state. It’s shaping up as a close nominating campaign, so the delegates from those states could end up making the difference in nominating the candidate. </p>
<p>If it is true that the Clinton campaign is trying to get those delegates seated (without holding a “do-over” election or caucus), and succeeds, and it does make the difference in the nomination, it strikes me that few actions could be better calculated to lose the war (general election) while winning the battle (nomination.) Is this an actual, active effort, or is it more in the stage of “trial balloons”?</p>
<p>I hope it’s trial balloons. I think if Clinton insists, she may end up losing the war (well, she seems to be losing the battle right now).
The best thing to do would be to allow FL and MI to hold caucuses and primaries. Since the candidates are still neck and neck, voters in these two large states would be able to make a difference–which is why they moved their primaries up. I do feel queazy about not letting them have their say. But too many would-be voters stayed away from the primaries and too many others voted uncommitted to give any legitimacy to the Clinton delegates.</p>
<p>To me, letting Michigan and Florida have do-overs is like bad parenting: making a threat and then not being prepared to carry it out. However, the voters shouldn’t be penalized because the party machinery broke the rules.</p>
<p>BUT, if that’s the case, nothing that’s happened so far should count. I heard Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, so that wasn’t a legitmate vote.</p>
<p>Well, they could allocate the delegates according to the vote counts in the nearest neighboring state closest to the time they would have otherwise voted. (Georgia and Illinois). Hmmm.</p>
<p>The Democratic party AGREED (and Hillary did too…there was a NPR interview where she agreed) that there would be no democratic primary delegate votes in Michigan and Florida. In fact, as noted above, the rest of the Dems removed their names from the ballot in Michigan. Folks in Michigan were led to believe that the democratic primary there did not count for anything…and my guess is that MANY voters didn’t come out at all. AND if they did, the only name on the ballot was Clinton (despite the agreement that this primary would not carry any delegates). </p>
<p>Now that the going is getting rougher, Hillary is trying to change an agreement that SHE agreed to. Sorry…but if this is how she intends to be President, she will NOT be getting my vote. </p>
<p>But to be honest, I’m not surprised. If she had been completely honest about this whole thing, she would have removed her name from the Michigan ballot LIKE ALL THE OTHERS IN HER PARTY.</p>
<p>“making a threat and then not being prepared to carry it out.”</p>
<p>No, it’s carrying out the threat.</p>
<p>If you hold a primary before Feb. 5, the delegates from that primary won’t be seated. If you hold one after Feb. 5, they will. There’s still lots of time after Feb. 5 for them to hold a legit primary or caucus.</p>
<p>But primary elections are expensive - and wouldn’t the state have to provide them with the election apparatus, etc.? Can a party make the state government provide them with an election? (I have no idea how this works.) Caucuses could be handled by the party itself, but it’s been observed that caucuses tend to favor Obama, because of the greater degree of motivation of his supporters. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Uh, I haven’t heard that Hillary said she’ll be going for those delegates. Maybe an overzealous supporter thinks she will be. Don’t blame candidates for misstatements by their overzealous supporters. </p>
<p>I am not myself a Hillary supporter, but let’s not paint her with a brush she doesn’t deserve (until we know she deserves it).</p>
<p>I HAVE heard talk that they might try to do these states over, but not from the campaign. That is, have a caucus or balloting. Well, it seems unfair that a state gets to take the play over because they don’t like how it played out the first time. If this is done, IMO, Obama will win anyway. The momentum is with him. </p>
<p>I was just having lunch with a person who voted absentee a few weeks ago for Hillary and wishes now she had gone Obama. She said at the end of the day she thinks HRC is intelligent and competent, but just not really likeable. I think a lot of people see her that way.</p>
<p>I heard (didn’t source it) that all the dem candidates signed an actual legal agreement to NOT campaign in Florida and Michigan, but Hillary violated that agreement and campaigned in Florida a day before the primary anyway.</p>
<p>So she “won” Florida’s primary, of course, and now there is the noise about getting the delegates seated anyway. </p>
<p>I’m hoping for a “real” primary in Florida in the next few weeks.</p>
<p>Clinton did not campaign in Florida the day before the primary, however she did give a “victory” speech the night of (which wouldn’t violate any agreement).</p>
<p>kluge, I think it’s a bit of a balloon that she is hoping will agitate the Florida/Michigan voters into demanding something that she knows would make her look bad if she asked for it herself. </p>
<p>I think the voters in those states should be counted, but in new elections, and the DNC should split the cost with the states.</p>
<p>I have little sympathy for Michigan or Florida. Under the customary practices of both parties, the states holding late primaries don’t have their “votes counted” because the candidate is already selected by default by the early states. In other words, not all of the states’ votes count. The fact that Michigan and Florida’s votes won’t count this year is not a departure from the past practices.</p>
<p>Razorsharp: That’s an interesting point – and valid. But what if there’s no clear front-runner at the end of counting the delegates for all the other states? In the case you described, one candidate was winning and the count for the uncounted states couldn’t have affected the outcome. So in that case, why bother counting those votes? But what if MI and FL could be decisive this year?</p>
If Michigan and Florida knew of the possible consequences of their actions, then they should be stuck with those consequences. If the democratic party caves in this year, next year you can bet nearly every “late state” will be moving to the front of the line. In other words, chaos. </p>
<p>I am not saying that chaos would be a bad thing given that I don’t like the current selection process where Iowa and New Hampshire are always first and second. I am willing to bet that the final candidates for the Republican nomination would be different right now if the Republican primaries had started in New York.</p>
<p>“I am willing to bet that the final candidates for the Republican nomination would be different right now if the Republican primaries had started in New York.”</p>
<p>kluge - I began hearing this last week, I thought, but it was speculation that her political machine was studying the issue hard. The article surely affirms that the story isn’t over. While I agree with razorsharp that the party is the one who screwed over their voters, I am hoping they will schedule new primaries/caucuses to make it a legitimate vote. While I haven’t made it a secret that I’m an Obama fan, I would be more accepting of Hillary as a candidate if the primaries were held again and she wins with both she and Obama given the same opportunities to campaign (and have their friggin names on the ballot!). If the majority of Democrats feel she is the best candidate and have communicated so through their primaries, I will accept what is decided.</p>
<p>“If the majority of Democrats feel she is the best candidate and have communicated so through their primaries, I will accept what is decided.”</p>
<p>She can’t do that in Florida - without the early write-in ballots, she would have lost anyway if there had been actual campaigning. She’d lose by more now. Obama won the Latino vote in Maine, Washington, and Kansas this past weekend, and I expect we’ll see repeats of that.</p>