Letters to the Editor
-
What happens with Florida won't matter much for Clinton
Neither the current delegate split based on the last primary nor a re-do in Florida will make a big enough difference in Clinton's delegate total to warrant the attention that it is getting. At most, she'll get a couple dozen extra delegates out of it, while Obama will remain much farther ahead than that. I think her only hope, and what this is all about, is Michigan: IF she can get her 55% of the delegates there and Obama gets his 0%. I don't think any honest democrat will accept that as fair, but I think it's her ultimate goal, and the only way she can get close to Obama's delegate total. That's why she's opposed to a re-do in Michigan.
-
...and may I remind the Supers...
Take CA and NY out of Wes' equation since they haven't gone Republican in 20 years, and aren't going to start now...
-
All's fair
I'm under the impression that all is fair that Hillary Clinton decrees is fair in politics.
If any Democratic party leader decrees the Michigan vote FAIR, then there will be a huge outcry and a major rebellion in the party. Also, if it's so fair, who is going to get the delegates pledged to "Uncommitted," since there were a pretty large number of other Dems in the race at the time of the Michigan primary? Is Hillary now going to contend that "Uncommitted" should all go to Dodd or Biden? That would be just as "fair" as anything else she's talking about.
I think the Florida election was equally unfair because of the "no campaign" issue and the fact that a provably large number of Democrats did not vote because they already knew it was a "beauty contest" that would not matter. Unless someone can do meaningful research to prove to that most Democratic voters rushed out to vote in Florida because they believed that their votes would count in the end, I don't really care how many DID vote. I want to know how many DIDN'T before I can declare that election fair.
I think the campaigns should stay the hell out of this and let the party and the states work it out -- but then I guess that might not meet Hillary's definition of fair.
-
..how's it shakin' out, theoretically?
Obama vs. McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png
Clinton vs. McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png
They both win, but guess who has to win Florida to get the presidency?
SurveyUSA current poll shows Clinton up by 19% in Penn. By Clinton rules, if Obama gets it to 10-5% by election day, isn't that really a Obama win?
-
i agree
There have been many valid arguments made here about the Florida and Michigan situations. I think the best solution would be to:
1) halve their delegates - it's a punishment for being tools.
1a) adjust the 2,025 delegate threshold accordingly
2) let Clinton have Florida.
3) Obama should work like mad to get Edwards on his side so Edwards' Florida delegates go to Obama.
4) Caucus in Michigan (cause there's no way you can possibly make the argument that those were fair...there just aren't any)
5) We'll notice that in fact nothing really changes, Floridians are happy (but chastened), Michiganders likewise....and on and on we go.
(although part of me is beginning to suspect that this remains a story for the simple reason that it keeps alive the (incorrect) idea that Clinton still has a chance. So long as CNN can say "but what about Florida and Michigan?" and thus keep their ratings bonanza chugging along)
-
@RealityCounts
I don't think many Obama supporters would say that the popular vote doesn't matter. In fact they keep mentioning that Obama leads the popular vote in the assumption that the trend will continue. Most of the dustup seems to be over caucuses v. primaries, and what to do about FL and MI. I personally don't think you can consider FL and MI to be free and fair elections and the dems need to clean this up ASAP. Unfortunately, it looks like the deathmatch between Dean, the DNC and the florida dems continues.
-
@BrianS
You say: "Are you seriously trying to argue that, of the 1,459,814 people who voted for Clinton in the Texas primary, she only got 18,620 caucus votes because 1,441,194 of her primary voters were prevented from voting due to "physical, financial, or family limitations"
The reason Clinton won the popular vote in TX and Obama received more delegates is this: Texas has an exceedingly strange caucus system by which delegates are apportioned not according to the present election, but according to the LAST one. In other words, if precinct A had a big turnout in a previous election - for dogcatcher, say, and precinct B had a lower turnout, the former is rewarded and the latter penalized in a subsequent election. In TX, this time around, precincts with large numbers of black voter got a big (undeserved) award,and those with large numbers of Hispanic voters got a big (undeserved) penalty. THIS is the reason the Obama campaign focused so fiercely on the caucus process in TX. Clinton could've turned out an equal number of caucus goers - and still lost to Obama. Is this equitable? Obviously not.
-
@KateTex
For the sake of argument, I'll agree that the Texas process was not equitable, nor was it fair. How long ago was the process set up and approved by the Texas and/or national Party? I don't know the answer, but I imagine it was at least six months or a year ago, probably longer. Who would've been more likely to have ANY influence on the design/approval of the process: Clinton or Obama?
Is Obama supposed to NOT try to win if the process, which he had no hand in creating, happens to favor him? Should he have ordered the campaign to keep his supporters out of the caucus if they began to outnumber Hillary's? Would THAT be equitable and fair?
BTW, although I'm an Obama supporter like BryanS, who(m?) you were responding to, I'm not related to or connected with him. You can tell us apart because there's no "S" in my name, and he spells "Brian" incorrectly.