Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

557
Letters
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 12:00 AM

Should Florida and Michigan vote again?

Sure it would be expensive, but the cost to the Democratic Party if superdelegates end up choosing the nominee would also be high.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 08:59 AM

I suggest we have these votes

after Hill and Bill release the tax returns.

No tax returns, no nomination. It's a simple as that.

We need to know what sleazy, corrupt dealings are buried in those tax returns. After all, if there was nothing scummy, they would be out already, right?

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:02 AM

No victories for cheaters

Hillary kept her name on the MI ballot to cheat her way to more delegates. There is no other interpretation. Her campaign has had so many of the cheating moments that we forget how scummy so many of the actions are.

No rewards for cheaters. MI represented cheating.

FL as well involved cheating. She violated the rules by campaigning there.

No victories for cheaters.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:07 AM

Florida has offered a primary

Anything wrong with that? It's only fitting, because it was Republican decisions that led to Florida Democrats getting stuck between disobeying the party and accepting a Republican victory on a ridiculous tax measure.

But what about Michigan? Are they so broke they couldn't have a Democratic primary?

One thing it would settle, once and for all, is this: can Obama carry a large industrial state in a primary?

I'd want a primary, too. Nothing dramatizes the questions I have more than Obama's victory in the Texas caucus, while he was losing the popular vote in a primary. It's pretty strange when the populist candidate does with the lower turnout of a caucus. He's apparently winning the Texas caucus by 2,000 votes out of 40,000, as of this writing, while Hillary took the primary by 100,000 out of 3,000,000 votes. Percentage-wise, that's the same result in reverse. It gives him more delegates at the same time as 100,000 more people actually voted for Hillary. How much sense does that make?

Oh, and another detail: Obama got 80% of the black vote, but their turnout was lower than the last time. That was surprising as hell to me. What's happening there?

My question is, is Obama scalable? (He's run a very Internet-savvy campaign, and his supporters will know what I mean.) Sure, in a red state with the governor on his side, he can trounce Hillary in a caucus, while denouncing the superdelegates as unrepresentative. So, let's throw down: Michigan, Florida, fair fight. Who gets the most votes? Who wins the popular vote? Hmm. Are those closed primaries?

Longer term, one of the things we owe to Howard Dean is that we're all getting to know the state Democratic parties. Man, some of those things are creaky, and the party rules are also weird. We need one set of rules on how to award delegates. I myself don't like caucuses, or the strange Texas rule that bases how many delegates who get awarded partially based on how many voted last election. What the heck is that about?

You know, there's despair in the Obama camp today. Don't worry. Your guy is still ahead, and likely will end up the candidate. But if his election would depend on not counting two major states, that's not so inspiring, is it?

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:08 AM

Vote again, but let the states bear the brunt of the cost of revote

because there has to be some penalty and disincentive for states to break the rules (otherwise can be a free-for-all in the future). And yes, for democracy, and also for the calculation that we need to have their voter enthusiasm on our side in November (both massive swing states).

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:09 AM

Obama will still be ahead

Hey Hillary voters, how would they count the votes in Michigan. The candidates, agreed before these elections in MI to take their names off of the ballot. Hilary chose not to be ethical and left her name on. So how do you give out the MI delegates. 40% of the voters put undecided because Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. So does that mean the 40% "undecided" goes to Obama? In FL his name was on the ballot, so it would be easier. However Obama would still be ahead in delegates. Its the delegates that count, and Obmam has been winning in congressional districts with the most delegates, even in the states he lost.

So teh real question is, to what length are the tough fighters in the Clinton campaign and among her supporters willing to go their win and divide our party?

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:09 AM

Dataguy

Obama taking his name off the ballot was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to defeat Clinton. He overestimated his support and it backfired. He ought to have to live with that.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:12 AM

THE PHOTOGRAPH

I would like to see a reporter ask Obama POINTBLANK if he or any of his staff put the photo in muslim dress into Matt Drudge's hands. It is called race-baiting and dirty tricks.

I recommend an article by Sean Wilentz "Race Man, How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton." You will find it at:

www.thenewrepublic.com or www.realclearpolitics.com

This article explains in detail what many of us know to be the truth.

Obama the true naive rookie was revealed in the Canadian Embassy caper. What candidate (not yet the nominee) would try to cover one of his surrogates going into the embassy of a foreign government and attempting to negotiate trade policy? Seems Obama thinks he is the inevitable president and can't wait to get started. Now that is truly boneheaded and what turned the down-to-earth good people of Ohio off, off, off.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:13 AM

Obama was creamed in Ohio.

Absolutely shellacked. Everyone seems to be forgetting that. He can't win the White House without Ohio. If he gets the nomination in spite of these, the DNC will be directly responsible for the rise of the McCain Democrats, who will deliver McCain to the oval office. mark.my.words.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:14 AM

Absolutely yes!

Both states are very important to a Democrtic win in November. They can not be left out of the process! They should both hold primaries the most democratic primary process. Obama supporters can not claim it unfair to him as he has shown his ability to win primaries. Let him work for the nomination. Lord knows Hillary has.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 09:15 AM

@Notorious W.E.S.

She is strong

Right, because strong people constantly cast themselves as the victim.

She is invincible

Except among the 49.5% of the population that can't stand her, a percentage that is growing daily as people see how she's conducted her campaign.

She is woman

I'll give you that one. She is a woman, although not one I'd ever choose as the standard-bearer for my sex.

Ann Richards was a woman.

Hillary Clinton is a Mean Girl.

(Note to Michigan and Florida voters: She doesn't give a rat's patoot about your disenfranchisement. If she didn't need your votes for Homecoming Queen, she'd still be ignoring you in the hall and passing mean notes about you.)

Most Active Letters Threads

530

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
284

A new report questions "suicides" at Guantanamo

Why is the Obama DOJ attempting to block judicial review of three highly suspicious deaths?
232

I live in a van down by Duke University

How do I afford grad school without going into debt? A '94 Econoline, bulk food and creative civil disobedience
128

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
126

Trig, the anti-abortion straw baby

Sarah Palin's son is being used to demonize pro-choicers

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon