Florida and Michigan
yoke
Posts: 1,440
So I was having a conversation the other day with my buddy and the topic of the Florida/Michigan came up. Basically without getting into the details of the conversation it was said that if he lived in FL or MI he would not vote for a Democrat(regardless of candidate) if they don't allow these primary votes in. His thought was that basically the Democratic Party is giving everyone the big FU on this. He feels that its not the Voters fault that this happened and basically the votes should be counted. Mind you he is not a supporter of Hillary.
So I was wondering if the voters of these states will punish the Dem party vote Republican(or 3rd party) or simply not vote at all.
So I was wondering if the voters of these states will punish the Dem party vote Republican(or 3rd party) or simply not vote at all.
Thats a lovely accent you have. New Jersey?
www.seanbrady.net
www.seanbrady.net
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
They get what they get. WHat I'd do in that sense is vote out every one of the idiots that screwed me for the convention, so if I'm democrat, I'm voting for a new democrat not the incumbant in the next election.
I don't think there's a chance in hell anyone voting democrat already is changing to republican in this election if they feel strongly they'll probably write it in, but if 2000 is any indication they probably won't be able to find the write in portion of the ballot because they got confused on what freaking holes to punch out.
It isn't the voters fault, it's the leaders of that state who chose to move up their primaries after they agreed not to. That's directly who the voters should hit up in thier next election. As for president, if your person dosen't get the nomination, just write them in.
These were not free and fair elections, so why should they count as they stand? In Florida's case, they should take it out on the Republicans, since they're the ones the moved the primary up. Of course, the elected Democrats in that state went along with it - so they should be "punished" as well, i.e. voted out for fresh politicians in their own primaries. Taking it out on the national party is directing anger at the wrong Democrats.
And seating Michigan as is? While I'm sure Hillary "Stalin" Clinton would love that, as she was the only one on the ballot, it isn't really "democracy" to reward her that way. To further the problem, she not only wants her full 55% from that state (horrible showing for the only candidate), but screams bloody murder at the idea of appointing the uncommitted to Obama. Acording to her, he deserves exactly 0%. Hell, if she thought she could swing it, she'd argue that he should get negative delegates.
The rules of the DNC state that these States must be punished by losing at least 50% of their delegate vote. The punishment itself was upped to a 100% loss - though it looks likely that the rules committee will bring that back to 50%.
I'm sorry the "voters" in these states aren't smart enough to realize how undemocratic it would be to seat the full delegations ("voters" in quotes, because I don't think the average voter is responsible for raising this stink); but if the states are allowed to get away with what they did, you'll start seeing 2012 primary elections begin the second week of June 2008.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
why should they go first ? who cares about those two states ?
I understand that many not see those two smaller states as significant, or why they should historically always go first. However, it is buzz and precedent that ignites the start of the campaign... and the DNC was very clear to the two states prior to setting their dates what the consequences would be should they choose to ignore the rules set by the committee.
What is so abominable to me is how Clinton panders to this topic and to the media.
Of course it wouldn't be fair to seat them at the convention with full votes.
Of course it wouldn't be fair to give all 'non-committed' voters in Michigan to Obama, nor would it be fair to consider all 55% of Michigan to Hillary when BO wasn't even on the ballot.
Of course it wouldn't be fair to tell the two states the consequences of their actions and then look the other way.
This is a nightmare for the Dems who must win Michigan and Florida.
I fully believe that HRC would rather suck the entire blood out of the DNC on her fight for the nomination -- and kill the chances of BO. If either candidate was given this question, how would they respond?
Assume you have the power to drop out of the race, and by doing so, ensure that your opposing DEM candidate will win the white house.
Akin to the biblical story about the mother who would rather give up her baby to the other woman (who claimed it) than see it harmed... I would expect either DEM candidate to NEVER harm the other candidate's chances in Nov against the opposing party.
I cannot stand how HRC has carried herself during this process.
and then keep bringing up how Florida and Michigan knew the rules and chose to break them?
Yes they did... but arent the rules a little stupid? 2 relatively insignificant states in terms of population and role in government somehow have such a large say in who gets elected president? Why does Iowa and New Hampshire get to determine which candidates are viable and who gets dismissed (rudy) early on?
Its a fucked up system, and for once state government said "fuck the rules" and "fuck the party" and did what was right for their population- in much larger states, and often "swing" states.... and now everyone tries to hide behind the "rules" when refering to MI and FL.
Its one of the few times in my life time i actually feel like my state government tried to do something sensible... and just for those around the country (and world) that arent aware, other than the day or two before our primary, there was virtually no complaining by the public, or the media about the whole issue... It didnt become an issue until Hilary decided her only way to win was to try and get the MI and FL delegates counted.
why not do away with the primary system entirely and have an open election?
minorities