Florida & Michigan primary elections--count or no count?

salty blues

salty blues

Active Member
Should the will of the voters in the Democratic primary elections in Florida & Michigan be allowed or should the bosses in the party machine be allowed to dictate to the voters?
Obviously Hillary has based her reason for continuing her campaign on the premise that these states should be counted. I am no Hillary supporter, but I am inclined to agree with her on this matter.
How do you have a Democratic convention without seating delegates from these two states?
What do YOU think?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I voted for option 3. I personally feel having an election and not having it count is a waste of money, so they either should count or they should do them again atleast from their own pocket.
 
rabbit_72

rabbit_72

Member
The dems should have never held their elections early. The two states knew the rule and broke it anyway. Perhaps this will be a lessoned learned.
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by rabbit_72
http:///forum/post/2599803
The dems should have never held their elections early. The two states knew the rule and broke it anyway. Perhaps this will be a lessoned learned.
I agree.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Agreed, you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Blame the State Legislatures for the problem.
 
lexluethar

lexluethar

Active Member
They should not count. They knew that their elections wouldn't count if they held their primary's early. Whoever voted on having the elections done early should be held responsible, and i personally hope they get the boot. In an election year that the race is this close, it is pittiful that two entire states won't get a say - all because a few legislators wanted the publicity of having their states vote first... idiots.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
In the idea of fareness between the two candidates of course it shouldn't count. But the bigger issues that they in their democratic process just made two key states votes NOT count torward their primary process and that simply is an unacceptable solution to a state trying to wrestle away some influence from the North East.
You can just say oh your vote doesn't count because some moron somewhere decided to not count them because of when you want to hold your primary.
The beautiful thing is that Obama is going to now be forced to argue for the disenfranchisement of millions of African Americans and hispanics. All because of a decision of a white guy named harry who wanted to keep the influence of the nominee selection in the hands of the more white north east.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
This whole issue shows how big a fool Howard Dean is. Florida and Michigan Democrats don't have a say in who their candidate will be but people in Puerto Rico and Guam do. There is no way in hell they wont seat those delegates. If they don't the will hand both states to McCain on a silver platter.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
not being a democrat, I couldn't care less. but I do think it's hilarious how they all whined in 2000 about not wanting voters to be disenfranchised and now they want to disenfranchise millions of voters. yes, it would be changing the rules in the middle of the race but 2000 was changing the rules too. it clearly showed that Bush won Florida, but they wanted to change the rules of how the votes are tallied to give Gore the win.
as for saying Obama would be behind, I don't know. I know they were both on the ballot in Florida and Clinton won pretty easily. but I don't think Obama was on the ballot in Michigan. also, not counting the votes I think is a punishment to the voters who had no say on what dates the elections were held.
at this point, I dont' think it makes a difference because Obama will win. but it's just dragging out this process and I think the Republicans are enjoying the show.
 
ifirefight

ifirefight

Active Member
Leave it up to Florida to look like a bunch of idiots AGAIN. I agree,the Dems knew there delegates wouldnt count....now they whine about it.
The next President will be McCain.
 
coraljunky

coraljunky

Active Member
Originally Posted by ifirefight
http:///forum/post/2600343
Leave it up to Florida to look like a bunch of idiots AGAIN. I agree,the Dems knew there delegates wouldnt count....now they whine about it.
The next President will be McCain.

We're just a bunch of dangling chads
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
What's so special about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? They get to basically set the tone for the whole primary every year. This crap is rediculous.
There needs to be like 4 regional primaries and none of these BS caucuses. Then there could be no operation KAOS and everyone would have an equal shot at voting. The vote weighting nonsense the Democrats do should also be outhoused. Having the voters in one area have their votes count for more because of the results from the last presidential election is just wrong.
 
gonefishcrazy

gonefishcrazy

Member
I live in Florida and most of the people that went out and vote was because there was a question about homeowners taxes that would help lower poperty taxes. If you did not own a home and was a democrat you did not vote. All candidates agreed to this in the beginning. I knew this when I voted. If Obama had the most votes and delegates in both states this would not be an issue. Hillary thought she would be in the lead and would not need them. The whole thing is messed up but why change the rules now. How can you be fair in Michigan when all other candidates names except Hillary were not on the ballot. They are now saying to give Hillary 69 and Obama 59.
 
digitydash

digitydash

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2600197
not being a democrat, I couldn't care less. but I do think it's hilarious how they all whined in 2000 about not wanting voters to be disenfranchised and now they want to disenfranchise millions of voters. yes, it would be changing the rules in the middle of the race but 2000 was changing the rules too. it clearly showed that Bush won Florida, but they wanted to change the rules of how the votes are tallied to give Gore the win.
as for saying Obama would be behind, I don't know. I know they were both on the ballot in Florida and Clinton won pretty easily. but I don't think Obama was on the ballot in Michigan. also, not counting the votes I think is a punishment to the voters who had no say on what dates the elections were held.
at this point, I dont' think it makes a difference because Obama will win. but it's just dragging out this process and I think the Republicans are enjoying the show.
Bush won the Electoral votes which is goverment.He didn't win the popular votes.If you as me why vote if the people voting can get vetoed and put who ever the goverment wants in their.As far as bush clealy winning Florida I think your wrong.Both had 49% and Nader had 2%.Scroll down to the bottom and you can get the voting tallies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by digitydash
http:///forum/post/2600392
Bush won the Electoral votes which is goverment.He didn't win the popular votes.If you as me why vote if the people voting can get vetoed and put who ever the goverment wants in their.As far as bush clealy winning Florida I think your wrong.Both had 49% and Nader had 2%.Scroll down to the bottom and you can get the voting tallies.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
several different media outlets went back after the election and did their own studies, only to find that Bush did in fact win Florida.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2600363
What's so special about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? They get to basically set the tone for the whole primary every year. This crap is rediculous.
it's agreed to by the parties. the reason that NH, SC, Iowa, and Nevada all go first is because they are all somewhat small states. due to this, campaigning in those states are usually smaller functions and "up close and personal" campaigning. this allows unknown and underfunded candidates to have a better chance to become "known" before moving on to the bigger states where campaigning isn't nearly as personal. it is meant as fairness to the candidates, not the particular states. that was the rule agreed upon by the DNC. Florida and Michigan, both large states with a large number of delegates, broke the established rules.
 
digitydash

digitydash

Active Member
How does the media know but the election people don't.The larger media when it come to goverment have a ajenda if you ask me so I don't believe it.I surely never heard that here in florida on the news.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The problem is a whole lot of the people in Florida and Michigan who voted for Clinton in the primaries are going to be plenty PO'ed that their votes don't count. As a McCain supporter I hope they don't seat the delegates but as political junkie I don't think the powers that be in the Democrat party can possibly be that stupid. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't at this point.
Unless a particularly nasty skelaton falls out of Obama's closet the Dems will lose nearly all the black vote and a lot of younger voters if they shaft him. That would hurt down the ballot in a lot of states. Not gonna happen. This is a classic no win situation unless Hillary conceeds and make an agreement that the delegates all get seated but she releases them to vote for Obama. Yep, I can just see that happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top