Let's Have a Redo in Michigan and Florida: Without One Neither Obama or Clinton Has a Good Shot Against McCain in November
What's the real problem about redoing Michigan and Florida? News reports have indicated that Obama's camp doesn't want a revote. Others said the various legislatures and political forces in the respective states don't want to have them either. Too much money? Or too unwieldy?
Or does a revote just make too much sense?
Whatever the reasons that caused the movers and shakers in these large states to defy the rules of the Democratic Party and move their primaries up to a forbidden date, the reality is that their actions have created a chaotic situation and may well adversely influence the national electorate in the November election.
Why? Because a lot of legitimate voters in those states, who, knowing the pitfalls of the election results but with no other option to express their political preferences in this pivotal election year, went to the polls to convey their feelings and will feel shortchanged and, worse, angry if their points of view are summarily dismissed.
This, because even though neither of the candidates campaigned in Florida, there was apparently a record turnout of 1.7 million voters, which gave a 50%-33% share of the vote to Hillary Clinton. Did these voters do so as a lark, knowing full well that their votes wouldn't amount to anything? A sort of "Let's tease Hillary to make her think she's popular, though our first choice is Barack Obama, but we'll withhold our votes for him to have this really big laugh at Clinton's expense."
Friends, even if the Florida primary isn't perfect, because, as some say, there's no way of knowing how many stayed home figuring the primary didn't matter, it doesn't explain away why such a huge turnout took place and why the overwhelming sentiment expressed that day was directed toward Hillary's candidacy.
But even so, and before you jump on me as a Hillary stooge, I would have to say that, given the circumstances and recognizing the rules, the Florida vote cannot count as it currently stands. And the Michigan vote is even worse, because most of the major candidates were not on the ballot, so a case can more effectively be made that Hillary's win there shouldn't matter any way you analyze those returns.
However it cannot be forgotten that a lot of people took the time to vote in those two states, and they will be furious if their voices are not included in the selection process. Some are fearful that it will either create a backlash against whoever is the Democratic nominee or that a lot of people will just sit on their hands in November and not bother to show up and vote at all.
For crying out loud, the stakes are so high this year, the numbers in popular vote and delegate votes for the two candidates are so close, and it's clear that neither will win the majority necessitated by Democratic convention rules. That brings us to the super delegates, who are being put in the proverbial rock in a hard place situation. Their very reason for being was so that we might take advantage of their long years of service and political know-how to help the party arrive at the proper decision by allowing them to independently make a determination as to what will work best to ensure victory in November, not simply to ratify whoever has won a plurality.
That's why redoing Michigan and Florida is the only real solution, because, even if they give neither Clinton or Obama the actual votes to put one of them over the top, it will surely give the super delegates an indication about how voters are viewing the respective candidacies and at a late, very telling stage of the campaign. And from two so very different regions -- a northern industrial state with major unemployment issues, and a mixed bag sort of southern state that has a lot of northeastern retirees, plus a huge Cuban American population.
If Obama is really the one to beat, then why should he resist courting these voters in a June contest, especially since after Pennsylvania and North Carolina how much other campaigning does he have to do that's all that important, considering the scant number of states remaining in the primary line-up?
And why allow Clinton to inflame her supporters by reminding everyone that without campaigning she won Florida by such a large margin in a record turnout -- and with Obama's name on the ballot. Why allow Clinton to blame Obama for helping to squelch a chance to allow Florida, the fourth largest state, and Michigan, which is ranked eighth, to have a significant influence at the Denver convention?
If Obama has convinced everyone by June that he is the candidate most admired and trusted, he has nothing to fear and it will be reflected by his showing in a redo of the Michigan and Florida primaries. He doesn't even have to win, just get a lot closer. It's really Hillary's day to lose, and if she falters badly then I believe it will be time for her to step aside. However, if we don't have the revote so many questions will linger, not to mention the festering bad feelings, making the lot of the super delegates incredibly difficult.
Wouldn't it be best to sort this all out while there's still so much time to make it happen, instead of standing on ceremony and endless talking about the money it will cost, and who's going to pay for the process, and whether accepting money from such a source might be viable?
If the candidates and political and governmental leaders are truly concerned about providing a fair and meaningful climax to the 2008 winter and spring primary/caucus contests then this is the best course of action. Remember how the Supreme Court imposed itself on the 2000 election, and in a relatively short time actually determined the winner without even permitting an accurate count of the votes. We have three months until summer begins and thus the opportunity to show those misguided jurists how to do it right by putting out a call to voters in Florida and Michigan, telling them we care about their concerns and their opinions. We need them to help us arrive at the proper conclusion to effect vitally needed unity and hence the best result for our party and for our nation.
If the party leaders and/or any of the major candidates shake their heads and things continue as they currently are then we face such an incredibly uphill fight in the fall that Sysyphus himself might think that, in comparison, his unending upward climb was a snap.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I used to be a Democrat and Democrat club president in college (1965) but the party "of the people" left me. I now view the democratic party being led by wannabe heroes and leaders (notice most avoided military service ala Obama Richardson etc) and are more interested in their political careers than the will of the peopel. If the democrats in Michigan and Florida are disenfranchised, I predict a Republican landslide in November.
Drop this B.S. Hillary talking point.
Look, Hillary won those staes for the follwogin reasons:
1) Name recognition alone
2) Barack never campaigned in either state
3) His name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan
4) Lots of Democrats stayed home
5) Lots of independent voted for McCain or other candidate because Barack was not an option
6) Barack Republicans voted for actual Republicans rather than Hillary in those elections
7) In Michigan, even though Hillary got 50+ percent of the vote, "Uncomitted" received 40%. Which is to say, 40% voted "Anything but Hillary".
8) Hillary, being Bill Clinton's wife has the benefit of the massive political machine he'd established over the 16 years they've been in politics and could easily deliver victories in most of the large states for her, without her having to even campaign much in states where Barack Obama never advertised nor campaigned.
It's ridiculous to tell your opponent that someone that the race has been called off and after they've left sprint to the finish line and try to claim the trophy and the prize money.
No revote. No changing the rules after the game has started. Especially when the purpose is to continue to change the rules until you get the outcome you want
Yes, you are a Hillary stooge. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Beak out the bowl haircut wig, rubber chicken and cream pie, Moe.
nah. once was enough. the last things the dems need are two more contests to prolong the inevitable. mi and fl get what they deserve for trying to bull rush past iowa and new hampshire. i guess they figured that they don't get enough attention and power in the general election, they also want to have a decisive voice in picking the nominee. the hell with them. if they want to get their stuff together for the general election, then fine. but there's no way in hell they should get a re-do. and the only ones really calling for it are hard-up clintonistas that want to prolong this poisonous race and give their lying, cheating candidate a chance to steal the race. hell no.
You must have a very low opinion of voters if you think that Democrats will stay home or vote for McCain because the local party was greedy for influence and refused to abide by party rules. Voters will hopefully vote their interests and consider the larger forces at work. I am an Obama supporter but if Clinton is nominated, I'll work for her election, disappointed as I may be. Heck, I'm disappointed she won CA where I live. This whole thing is unseemly to put it mildly and, frankly, this campaign has given us a foretaste of a Clinton presidency, which will not be pleasant. But I don't think it's going to happen, regardless of FL and MI. I just can't see her winning the general election; I couldn't see it before the primary season and it is even less likely now.
How about writing about something else!
If the jobless, depressed working class in MI is going to stay home because they feel dissed regarding their vote over the fact their financial future has been destroyed by the republicans, then, I don't know what to tell ya.
Whether you think there should be a re-vote depends largely upon whether you are for Clinton or Obama. I can't wait until we can move past all this nonsense to the general election. No matter what happens, we can't let McCain into the White House. And anything--
As a MIchigan resident & Progressive who voted in the Democratic Primary, I have to to comment that Hillary's 55% is pretty underwhelming as she was the only so-called "major" candidate on the ballot. Democrats voting in the Primary that supported one of the candidates not on the ballot, i.e. Obama or Edwards, were urged to vote "uncommitted" in case the delegation was seated at some point in the future. 40% of the people voted "uncommitted," while 4% voted for Kucinich. I think it's safe to say that all 44% of these people now support Obama, as he is a true Progressive. In my opinion, Clinton II would be just a continuation of the Centrist, DLC, Republican-lite Clinton administration that brougt you NAFTA, wefare "reform," escalated the so-called "War on Drugs," ballooned the prison population with non-violent drug users, pursued sanctions on Iraq that led to the death of 800,000 children (according to the U.N.), etc... I would no more want a former member of the Board of Wal-Mart for President than I would want Joe "turn-coat" Liebermann, who now works for McCain (chew on that, all you "Draft Gore in 2008 folks).
Many Democrats, Independents & Progressives did vote in the Republican Primary, supporting Ron Paul, for instance. These would also be Obama supporters. It seems likely that Hillary would be lucky to get 50% in a re-vote, or at most if she got 55%-45% would pick up, what, a few net delegates? Mr. Russnow's assertion that the electorate demonstrated overwhelming enthusiasm for Clinton's candidacy simply doesn't hold up to further scrutiny or analysis, at least in my humble opinion.
Obama/Richardson in '08! Now that's a ticket that puts Gore/Liebermann to shame. Besides, I have a feeling Obama can win his own state, unlike Gore (how sad is that?).
If we are going to talk about do overs, and what is fair, what about the massive Republican crossover vote which benefitted Hillary In Texas and Ohio? Nearly a quarter million Republicans in those two states admit to voting for Hillary for the sole purpose of weakening the Democratic Party. Should we do that again as well?
The rules are the rules, and both states broke them. End of story. If Hillary's primary concern was a Democratic win in November, she would graciously step aside, as she should have done weeks ago, the whole problem would go away. However, I don't think any of us expect her to do that, because it is quite obvious by now that Hillary's focus is on one thing an one thing only: Hillary.
really. maybe the clintons can force re-dos in all the caucus states too. we'll just keep running the primaries until she "wins."
The thought that voters would flip their vote in November based upon delegate seating in August is hard to comprehend. This whole business of who gets seated and who doesn't is 'inside baseball' to the core. Quick, name one of your state's delegates. Outside of the beltway insiders, who knows them and who cares?
Will a Democratic voter think to himself...
Ridiculous, no?
I completely agree. Obama's refusal in this matter to cooperate will mean the end of the Democratic bid for the White House. People are simply not going to vote for someone who plays games like this, putting his own, obvious, fear that he won't win over the rightful voices of the voters.
That's just not going to play.
"News reports have indicated that Obama's camp doesn't want a revote."
I think the writer and this first commentor need to explain to us or send us a link other than "news reports" that actually show "Obama's refusal". To the best of my knowledge, Obama said that they would abide by whatever the DNC decided. Feel free to correct me here, but I have not heard Obama talk about refusing a re-do.
And I seem to remember that early on in this argument, Shrillary was willing to accept the results as they stood from the "mixed-up' primary. I think she's shown herself to be a shameful opportunist.
The paragraph on the front page blames Obama, and the post above blames Obama. Again, feel free to correct me, but "someone who plays games like this, putting her own, obvious fear that she won't win..." seems to be much closer to the truth.
I don't think the Democratic party realizes how important this situation is to the people of Florida. Their rules and regulations, Super Delegates, etc. are so stupid I'm embarassed to be a registered democrat. I won't be after this election is over. I truly believe that people will be voting for John McCain if their candidate does not win the primary.
For years, the Republicans and their right wing media acolytes have done everything they could to promote Hillary as the eventual Democratic standard bearer, because she has always been the opponent they wanted. She is the one they know they can defeat. After seven years of Bush, they know that it will be next to impossible to generate any level of voter enthusiasm for the Republican agenda, but they knew that they could count on a sufficient level of Hillary Hate to energize their base, regardless of who their own candidate might be. Let's face it, after Bush and Cheney, is there any politician on the national scene with higher negatives than Hillary? The Republicans do not know anything about governing, but they continue to clean the Democrats clock when it comes to cynically manipulating the election process. And their greatest ally in their pursuit of a victory in November has been Hillary Clinton's ego.
The mess in Florida is certainly part of the Republican effort to muck up the process, as was the massive illegal crossover voting that gave Hillary her victories in Ohio and Texas. When Hillary did not step aside after Ohio and Texas, the general election was essentially decided. The Republicans win, just as they planned. It was a win-win for them. Either an easily beatable Hillary becomes the nominee, or a vindictive and narcissistic Hillary decides that if she stays in long enough, she can so damage Obama in the process that McCain will win and she can have another shot at the nomination in 2012. The events since the Texas and Ohio primaries only serve to prove that the Republicans know Hillary better than we do. She has played into their hands beautifully.
Which candidate only wants some of the electorate counted.
No it's not Bush, Obama
HuffPost's Pick
After 7 years of listening to an administration that says one thing and meant the other and seeing one broken promise after the other, I can't help but wonder why the Democratic voters are asking for more of the same. A contract was entered, a promise was made and so the rule of law must prevail. That's it! Simple! It is a principled stance that, as bitter as it is to swallow must be supported by all parties including the voters from both states. If not, then aren't Democrats no different from Republicans they seek to replace. It is the lesson I preach to my children. Grow up and move on.
Can you hear the Clinton camp if Obama wanted to alter earlier agreements if he were behind in the polls? Would Clinton want these if she were ahead and the states in question were Obama territory. Oh if it were reversed. Can't you see the ads? About his trustworthiness. Their anger as they rail against a man who agrees and signs on a dotted line to do something and then reneges for personal ambition?!
He'd be a fool to agree to recounts. And we don't want a fool for president. Florida and Michigan did what they did. And dems de rulez. The only really fair thing is to split their delegates 50-50. That way they don't alter the race as it was set up but they get seated. And the DNC saves face and NO ONE reneges on their written promises. Everyone is playing by the rules.
Obama wouldn't even be in the race after what she's gone through!
poor, poor victim hillary. give me a freaking break!
Today it was announced in Michigan newspapers that the Obama campaign would not agree to legislation for a June 3 revote. McCain wins. He won against Bush in the primary a number of years ago, and he'll win against Obama as well. And some say Obama is a different kind of politician--not really.
nah. you're political instincts are wrong, fortunately.
Loading comments…
Posted March 20, 2008 | 04:06 AM (EST)