Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MacosNerd · Mar 6, 2008, 09:44 PM

Should Florida and Michigan have a second primary? They were warned not to change their primary dates to be too close to New Hampshire. They ignored the warning and lost their delegates and most of the candidates did not campaign in those states. Now with the democratic race being quite close they want in on the action. Is it far that they should be allowed to vote when they were warned in the first place.

I realize there's a difference between the state party members making the rules and the voters not getting their say, but still they new the rules.

On one level I really don't care, but on another, it doesn't seem right.

nader2008 · 10:48 PM

as long as the Republican party of Florida pays for it, I don't think tax payers should pay for a do-over. The Republican legislature & govenor moved the primary dates without the approval of the Democratic party national organization......I don't think Florida taxpayers or the Obama or Hillary campaigns should have to pay for it either.

Monique · Mar 7, 2008, 08:54 AM

No, the results should stand.

Who is going to tell them that the people of Florida and Michigan are not Americans and that their voices do not count. And who really care that their primaries were too close to New Hampshire. Except for the fact that the candidates did not campaign. It is like saying Mrs. Clinton won and we wanted Obama to win. So, we will make sure that she will not get those delegates. Also, how old is the head of the democartic party. Give me a break, punish them.

MacosNerd · Mar 7, 2008, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by nader2008

as long as the Republican party of Florida pays for it, I don't think tax payers should pay for a do-over. The Republican legislature & govenor moved the primary dates without the approval of the Democratic party national organization......I don't think Florida taxpayers or the Obama or Hillary campaigns should have to pay for it either.

Ha, that's funny, I highly doubt the republican party is going to pay for a primary do-over. It will come out of the local democrat party.

olePigeon · Mar 7, 2008, 01:09 PM

Interesting strategy. Maybe during the next election the Democrats can push for the swing states to arbitrarily change their primary day as to keep as many Republicans from campaigning there.

tie · Mar 7, 2008, 02:04 PM

Did the Democrats in Florida strongly protest the primary change? If not...

I can't see any possible reason Michigan should be allowed a do-over.

Eug · Mar 7, 2008, 02:11 PM

I was watching a CNN report which said that some legal types are claiming that while it is a grey area, it isn't really kosher for a presidential nomination to be submitted without proper representation. ie. The safest legal route would be to have some sort of representation from FL and MI.

Sherman Homan · Mar 7, 2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by nader2008

as long as the Republican party of Florida pays for it, I don't think tax payers should pay for a do-over. The Republican legislature & govenor moved the primary dates without the approval of the Democratic party national organization......I don't think Florida taxpayers or the Obama or Hillary campaigns should have to pay for it either.

The Florida House of Reps voted 118 - 0 to move the primary date.

Dakar the Fourth · Mar 7, 2008, 02:27 PM

I feel like there's a few ways I could go on this.

I think it's up to the DNC whether or not to hold a do over, but as far as counting the pre-existing votes are concerned, the DNC boycotted that primary because they felt the date was unfair, therefore Democrats those who voted ignoring this should not expect to have their vote counted.

Edit: I do think the DNC owes the FLA & MI voters their chance to be heard. With the ridiculous amounts of money that goes into campaigning and such, they should find a way to make this happen.

Edit 2: I do think this is symptomatic of our needing to create a better primary system. While I don't agree with this (somewhat pointless) rush to be an early primary, I do understand some of the logic behind it.

Eug · Mar 7, 2008, 02:37 PM

I don't understand any of the logic behind it. They should all be on the same day IMO.

They can take the extra $100 million saved and feed some hungry American kids or something. Or give it to iPhone developers or whatever...

Dakar the Fourth · 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I don't understand any of the logic behind it. They should all be on the same day IMO.

They can take the extra $100 million saved and feed some hungry American kids or something. Or give it to iPhone developers or whatever...

Let me preface this by saying I agree with you Eug...

...I had this discussion somewhere a year or two ago. I don't remember what the reasoning was, but as far as I can guess, it's an opportunity to let the candidates campaign at a much more local level. I wonder if it help or hurts candidates with smaller campaign funds as well. I also wonder if the delegate system wouldn't cause smaller states to get completely ignored in a one-day primary system.

tie · Mar 7, 2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan

The Florida House of Reps voted 118 - 0 to move the primary date.

Then that settles it.

I don't know, there is only so much stupidity I can take from Florida re voting.

They can't expect the DNC to save them from their own mistakes.

Eug · Mar 7, 2008, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Then that settles it.

I don't know, there is only so much stupidity I can take from Florida re voting.

They can't expect the DNC to save them from their own mistakes.

Didn't anyone tell them that they'd be penalized for doing so?

Buckaroo · Mar 7, 2008, 04:01 PM

Only if the government does not have to pay. If the Democratic party want to pay for it, sure.

peeb · Mar 7, 2008, 04:19 PM

I don't think the government ever pays for primaries, does it?

Buckaroo · Mar 7, 2008, 04:33 PM

Yes it's part of the process.

peeb · Mar 7, 2008, 04:36 PM

How odd.

Arty50 · Mar 8, 2008, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Monique

No, the results should stand.

Who is going to tell them that the people of Florida and Michigan are not Americans and that their voices do not count. And who really care that their primaries were too close to New Hampshire. Except for the fact that the candidates did not campaign. It is like saying Mrs. Clinton won and we wanted Obama to win. So, we will make sure that she will not get those delegates. Also, how old is the head of the democartic party. Give me a break, punish them.

You do realize that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and that 40% of the people chose "None of the Above."

There is no way in hell that the Michigan delegates should be seated unless a do over occurs there.

Florida is a bit muddier. Both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot. BUT, Obama kept his promise and didn't campaign in the state...at all. Hillary "technically" didn't campaign, but that's like saying Bush "technically" didn't lie to the American people about Iraq having WMDs.

If she wants to push to have the FL delegates seated, that's somewhat understandable. But for her to say that the MI delegates should be seated, which she has stated on many occasions, is dirty pool.

My vote is they either redo both contests or the delegates don't get seated.

Buckaroo · Mar 12, 2008, 03:50 AM

It doesn't look good for a do over in Florida. They are looking for ways to seat the delegates.

Re-vote picture clouds - Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Florida's congressional delegation just took a hard line against a re-vote in a joint statement:

Washington, DC – The Members of Florida’s Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives issued the following statement regarding the seating of Florida’s delegates at the DNC National Convention this August.

“We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.

tie · Mar 12, 2008, 07:56 PM

Divide the delegates in half and seat them.

Spend the money campaigning for the general election.

Dork. · Mar 12, 2008, 08:24 PM

You all also realize that the Republican Party penalized Florida and Michigan too, right? But they imposed a less drastic penalty, using the results of the early primaries but taking away 1/2 their delegates. South Carolina is in the same boat, but on the Republican side only: the Democrats gave SC special permission to hold their primary early, but they moved both back, so SC got the 1/2-delagate penalty on the Republican side only. The Republican penalty reduces state's influence in the nominating process but still includes them. the primaries in MI, FL, and SC were all contested, and the voters got their say.

The DNC penalty actively disenfranchises voters in affected states by ignoring the election entirely. Hillary was the only major candidate in Michigan with her name still on the ballot: Obama and Edwards had their names taken off, because the party told them to. How fair would it be to seat delegates under those conditions? The DNC is the real loser here, because it's unfair if they seat the delegates from the election, and unfair if they don't seat them. A do-over is the only solution that won't be totally lame.

And who do we have to blame for the DNC being the real loser here? Perhaps we should start with Howard Dean, the current head of the DNC. Remember him? If he can't figure out how to deal with this "crisis" without looking like a total idiot, then I'm glad he's not President right now....

Chongo · Mar 20, 2008, 02:04 PM

Revote donors tied to Clinton - USATODAY.com

Captain Obvious · Mar 20, 2008, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Revote donors tied to Clinton - USATODAY.com

well duh

The supporters of either candidate would gladly find a way to put up the funds to have a revote if they felt they would only benefit.

If either state had the margins of African Americans that South Carolina had in the primary the Obama camp would be crying about disenfranchised minority voters and raising money to carry out a revote.

I don't see why anyone would be shocked

Chongo · Mar 21, 2008, 12:12 PM

The re votes won't happen. The have to vet out all those who voted in the (R) primary so as to prevent them from "rushing" the vote

Captain Obvious · Mar 21, 2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

The(y) have to vet out all those who voted in the (R) primary so as to prevent them from "rushing" the vote

Its called being a registered member of the party.
A lot of other states do it. It isn't hard. They had to register a long time ago to qualify to be able to vote.

This is hardly an obstacle to why there can't be a revote.

Dork. · Mar 21, 2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Its called being a registered member of the party.
A lot of other states do it. It isn't hard. They had to register a long time ago to qualify to be able to vote.

This is hardly an obstacle to why there can't be a revote.

One of those states (Michigan, I think) has an open primary system where someone can vote in the other party's primary if they prefer a candidate in the other party, but cannot vote in both primaries. Many Democrats who knew their vote was not going to be counted voted in the Republican primary instead, and these are the voters that would need to be "weeded-out" if a revote occurs.

Chongo · Mar 21, 2008, 02:43 PM

not so obvious, is it?