Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.20.2008 5:47 pm

Should Mich. and Fla. count, or should Clinton play by the rules?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

In the dawn after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, let’s not talk about them, OK? Instead, let’s focus on the bigger picture. By some accounts, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s accounts in particularly, she is leading in the popular vote — as long as you count the votes in Michigan and Florida.

As you may recall, the Democratic Party penalized those two states by stripping them of their delegates for moving up the dates of their Democratic primaries.

At the time, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were not the only Democrats in the race. Neither of them campaigned hard in those large states, knowing that the Democratic Party rules had rendered their votes moot.

In fact, Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan when voters went to the polls.

And meanwhile, there is a key vote within the Democratic National Committee on May 31. The party’s rules committee will vote on whether, indeed, those states should be allowed to seat full delegations at the Democratic convention.

By the time most of us see this, Obama could have enough delegates to secure the nomination. But the question we’ll debate is this: Should Florida and Michigan count? Is Clinton trying to change the rules after the game?

24 comments

Comments are closed.

Hell no Florida and Michigan shouldnt count. Screamin’ Howie should just lay down the law to dems in those states, get in line and vote for Obamessiah in November, you’re opinions about who should have gotten the nomination are meaningless, just do what the DNC tells you, vote for Obamessiah. Its a great message sure to resonate well with voters not only in those two states, but nationwide. If your state party decides to try to be relevant and take the spotlight off the hicks of Iowa and the elites in NH, your votes wont matter until we tell you who to vote for.

— Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
6:24 pm May 20th, 2008

If the DNC allows Michigan and Florida to “count” then they should go back and redo the entire state primaries over in those two critical states, mainly so I can send more sales crews down there to show up at the wrong rallies and waste more of my time and money.

I think Obama could win Florida, but I think Hillary would win Michigan. It will be a tie again, but Obama is in the lead, and will win the remaining states in the Northwest + Puerto Rico.

However, the Clinton machine does not seem to go away without a fight to the end.

“And here I go again on my own
Going down the only road I’ve ever known,
Like a drifter I was born to walk alone
And I’ve made up my mind
I ain’t wasting no more time”

— robsmyth
9:23 pm May 20th, 2008

Absolutely not. Typical Clinton crap. They insisted that the rules barring Michigan and Florida from counting in the Delegate count be put into place..and now, when it would be to their advantage to count them…they want to change the rules.

I hadn’t realized that Obama wasn’t even ON the Michigan ballot at the time. Why put yourself on a ballot that won’t be counted? I can absolutely see the logic from that perspective.

— hs
9:44 pm May 20th, 2008

Of course those votes should not count.
The privileged class oif the DNC is all powerful and looking out for us.
They know best.
They’ll tell you so.

And they forget there was a riot in August 1968 in Chicago.
We can only hope for the same 40 years later.

— Scott_Simon
6:37 am May 21st, 2008

I don’t care what they do re those two states. One candidate is as bad as the other, just in different ways. I wouldn’t vote for or against either one of them.

If you think this country is in the doldrums now, give it 4 more years, and you’ll know what the doldrums are really like.

— johnh
7:11 am May 21st, 2008

No they should not be counted, the rules are rules. If they wanted those votes counted, they should have stepped up in the very begining!

— Gene
7:41 am May 21st, 2008

If the delegates are seated, what happens in 2012? Will every state have its primary on January 1st? Unenforced policies are meaningless. Authorities that don’t enforce their policies are irrelevant. How can the DNC retain any control over the primary process if it is spineless in the face of the Clinton machine’s what’s-good-for-me-today pressure?

— rt
7:44 am May 21st, 2008

2008 is NOT the first year that certain states were not allowed a say in their party’s presidential nomination process. Probably won’t be the last.

— StLoon
7:54 am May 21st, 2008

Nope. Shouldn’t count. If they claim to be part of the DNC, then they agree to play by DNC rules… though I’m not surprised by their reactions. Stupid is as stupid does.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Hillary trump Barack, and I have little love or respect for the Democratic party or its platforms, but buck up and pay the piper. Simple cause and effect consequences here.

On an aside concerning the primaries in general, I like my wife’s idea: Have all the primaries on one day. Period. These dragged out primaries can make it a circus and I don’t think the hearts and minds of people really get a chance to speak, because as the primaries roll on, people are left with fewer - if any - chances for them to vote on a candidate that they’d prefer to see nominated. At the very least hold the primaries all in the same month. I think we’d see a much different turnout on both sides had the primaries been held at the same time or close together as compared to being drawn out into a circus fashion leading many party faithful on both sides quite unhappy with their choices.

I mean come on, do we have a national Presidential election that drags on for 6 months?! No. You get one day to vote, otherwise people in following states start paying more attention to polls to figure out how to vote instead of voting their personal opinion and convictions. If we can have one day to vote for President, we can have one day to hold primaries. Just push that primary to March or April and hold the conventions in June, allowing more time for all candidates to compete against each other within their parties and against opposing parties.

— Logus
7:59 am May 21st, 2008

I don’t think Michigan and Florida really matter anymore, except in the academic sense. Obama has a predicted lead of 174 delegates, and if both of the states in question were counted (with Michigan votes for “uncommitted” going to Obama) then Clinton would pick up a total of 56 delegates, not enough to close the gap. It increasingly looks like this will be a brokered convention, settled by super delegates and floor votes.

To all of the “Operation Chaos” supporters here (and looking at the responses so far, there seems to be a few), this might not be the dream scenario you think it is. Right now, who is getting the media attention? Clinton and Obama. McCain can barely get airtime, because of the excitement in the Democratic primary.

In addition, the typical GOP election strategy has been to attack the opponent, and try to destroy them in the public mind. Well, which candidate do they attack? Even if they do attack one or the other, it doesn’t get real airplay – because we don’t know which one is the real candidate. So if this goes to a brokered convention, the media will be breathlessly focused on it (the last brokered Democratic Primary was in 1952) all the way until August 28th. Even ignoring the media coverage and analysis that will persist for days afterwards, this will only leave 68 days until the election – barely enough time for McCain to get into the media spotlight (and the voters minds) – and far to little time to run an effective smear campaign (by this time in the last election cycle “swift boat” adds had been running for 17 days!).

Also, there is the distinct possibility that rather than the Democratic party being split by a brokered convention, the Nominee and the former candidate could give rousing speeches, rallying the party to vote for the Democratic ticket – regardless of who they voted for in the primaries. It sure will get enough media attention – after all, it will finally select the Democratic Presidential candidate. It will probably have viewership share greater than the Super Bowl. Yep, dragging this primary out has Distinct advantages for the Democratic party.

— Anonaman
8:01 am May 21st, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All