OMG...What if Florida & Michigan Outlaws Pick the Democratic Nominee?

Democracy is messy. Yes, indeed. And sometimes its even got a wry sense of humor.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Florida and Michigan actually end up choosing the Democratic nominee for president? By voting last after fighting so hard to be first, the two big battleground states might get to be the real kingmakers in the Obama-Clinton brawl for it all. Even after Florida and Michigan broke rules that told them not to hold an election before Super Tuesday and got all their delegates stripped by the national Democratic Party.

Pshaw! to those superdelegates. I want to be a Democrat in Detroit or Miami, please.

One of the messiest problems the Democrats have right now is what to do with the two states that had elections in January but whose votes do not count because of the DNC's political death penalty on them. Democratic Party leaders from Chairman Howard Dean to the Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and US Senators Carl Levin (MI) & Bill Nelson (FL) are working feverishly to find a solution. Even Republican Governor Charlie Crist (FL) wants to help the Dems ... altruistically, I'm sure.

And there are solutions. The most recent and possibly most necessary is finding a way to allow Florida and Michigan to hold another election. This will allow voters to express their choice for Obama or Clinton in a way that actually will count.

No Democrat at the end of the day wants to double-dis (disrespect or disenfranchise) two major battleground states they will fight for this fall. A -- it's just plain wrong. B -- what a nice talking point for McCain!

How might new elections happen? Each state is allowed to hold a second election later this spring under Democratic rules. Both states kinda sorta want to do this, but they don't wanna pay for it. Clinton seems OK with it despite the risk that she claims to have "won" the original election in Florida (where neither candidate campaigned) and Michigan (where Obama was not even on the ballot). It's not clear yet whether Obama is good with this idea.

But the lost story is still the ironic story. The two states that broke the calendar rules because they were jealous of Iowa and New Hampshire always getting to go FIRST might now be forced to go LAST. Who woulda thought before this crazy, crazy election year that the final states to vote could be the most important? Perhaps in 2012, Iowa and New Hampshire will fight for the tail end?

Comments

[treadway123]

ANY ONE REALLY LOG ON HER -PLEASE GO www.judicialwatch.org/hillarywatch.shtml---------------------------.shtml---------------------------All the info you need for the Presidential Election! hAVE FUN

[CaptainObvious]

I want to avoid disenfranchising voters as much as the next guy, but even if they hold a re-vote, it won't be equally fair to both candidates - and they still will have succeeded in changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Clinton has been campaigning for the FL and MI delegations to be seated since it became clear she wouldn't wrap up the nomination after Super Tuesday. She'll get to claim "I have been Fighting For You, Florida and Michigan voters, and it has produced results". It would serve to grant a newfound legitimacy to her desire to have the rules changed in her favor: the rules that could help her, like the superdelegates, are good, and the rules that hinder her, like punishing rule-breaking delegations that happened to favor her (in one case, because she was the only candidate on the ballot), are bad.

I'll grant that the DNC's ruling to strip both states of ALL delegates was a bit heavy-handed. They could have avoided all this by copying the republican's solution to the problem - allow the candidates to campaign there, and hold a free and fair election, with all the candidate's names on the ballot, but strip the delegations of some of their early influence by only seating half of them.

If a re-vote is held, I think it unfairly favors Clinton. Especially now, since she has now "found karl rove's voice" and regained the "momentum" by waging a fear-and-smear campaign.

[messy]

NO, the revote took place in DC four years ago.

[PinkoAttic]

Well said.

[kingfishstew]

Well, there's always the math argument. Even if Hillary got her revote, it's possible (more than possible) that Obama could pass the 2025 delegate mark with before Hillary.

It's be bad for the party, but even allowing them to vote means Barack wins...wit­h PLEDGED DELEGATES

[Ides]

In a do-over, Florida and Michigan won't help Hillary Clinton much at all. Her margin to win is so ridiculously far-fetched now that giving Obama a second shot at Florida and Michigan means she doesn't stand a chance.

I'm ambivalent to Florida and Michigan at this point. A redo is fair but the Clinton camp doesn't want a redo, they want an unfair handout of free delegates.

FL and MI won't decide the Democratic Nominee. Not without a recount. If they do, the Democratic Party is finished.

[jackstpaul]

They have to hold new primaries. The way the race is, there's no fair way around it. Clearly the parties need to come up with alternatives for states that break the rules--such as making them go very late in the season if they break the rules—and at the state or state party expenses.

The states should have to pay. My understanding is that the states themselves--I thought it was just the state partiers --put in effect the dates of the original primaries. They're the ones who negated the votes of their residents. They must pay for their misdeed. Obama and Clinton didn't create this situation, nor did the DNC, nor did the residents of the two states. But the residents are responsible for choosing their state leaders.

MI and FL residents can then hold their leaders responsible for the irresponsibility and incompetence they displayed—and the millions their leaders will have cost them.

[DoTheMath]

Do-overs would be better than seating the delegates based on the invalid primaries already conducted, but it still bugs me that Clinton has gotten to play up to Florida and Michigan all this time, acting like she's so concerned about making sure they're not disenfranchised when she really just wants to make sure SHE gets those delegates. Gag.

[Pquilson]

By all means, have do-overs in Michigan and Florida. what then? Continue to have elections until the desired result is achieved?
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. They knew the penalties ahead of time, and chose to ignore them. If do-overs are allowed, then rules mean nothing.

[dmalbe]

Not that it means anything to the rest of America BUT the Florida Democrats were never asked whether they WANTED to break the rules with earlier elections. Had anyone asked us if we would like to go earlier so that our 2 million votes would count for nothing... we would probably NOT have agreed to the decisions of our election officials. We were NOT asked. To note... Florida has been under the rule of REPUBLICAN Governors for many years. Please recall the 2000 elections when JEB promised his brother a win for president. That was the year of the butterfly ballot where the hole for voting for Pat Buchanon was placed across from the name AL GORE. Thanks to Katherine Harris, W became president. For the past 10 years there have been no fair elections in this state because of corruption and voter fraud - thank you Jeb. Ironically, the first chance we have for a fair election it's the DNC that silenced the votes of 2 million democrats in Florida. Guess you're lucky to live in America. Must be nice.

[LeftRight]

Actually, in the case of FL, it was a republican legislature, and a republican governor which caused the primary to occur before Feb 5. Why then, should the democratic voters be punished to the point of not having their votes counted at all? However, to count the results as currently stand is even more unfair, since EVERYONE was told that their votes didn't count!

As far as MI, I'm not sure exactly what machinations occured there, so I can't speak for it, BUT to allow FL to re-vote, and seat their delegates without offering the same chance to MI, that's even more wrong!

[Pquilson]

I read in another thread on Huffpo regarding this matter, that the democratic legislators in the Florida legislature voted for the the date of the primary. I can not verifiy or vouch for that, just reporting what I read.

[kingfishstew]

Well, I think I'd have to demand that my state (Maryland) crosses the democratic party next election cycle. There's nothing cooler than getting a chance to vote twice, both at the begining of the election and at the end. Of course, some states have bold leaders and others don't. My democratic leaders don't strike me as particularly bold, but its a shame for any state to sit passively by while others achieve greatness.