Submitted by S-townMike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 22:07.
Yes, she gets no delegates. But "no" to "it doesn't matter." All candidates were on the ballot. So, it does matter somewhat and it sure as hell doesn't hurt her.
You can't convince me that Obama supporters wouldn't have been playing a Sunshine State win up as proof after South Carolina of his viability and a further example of their candidate's Achilles-like transcendence of the "old" Democratic Party structure.
I'm not sure how that recent 11 point spread in Tennessee is good news for Hillary, or how it shows lack of momentum for Obama. Didn't Hillary have a 15 point lead in Tennessee four days ago?
Also, one of the last polls going into Florida tonight had HRC/BO/JE at 57%/27%/12%... so, these polls seem to be a tad off the actual election returns.
Submitted by S-townMike on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 23:49.
It's a good time to handicap the odds of those delegates actually being seated at the Convention: I'd say it jumped to 50:50 at the closing of the polls. With FL's significance in a general election, do Howard Dean and the party really want to risk alienating these voters?
Submitted by Sean Braisted on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:54.
Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to not answer your question. Howard Dean isn't alienating voters...you really think people are going to make a decision about who the next President is going to be, a Republican or Democrat, based on whether the DNC sat their delegates at a convention, when they knew full well from the beginning they wouldn't be sat if they moved up their primary?
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:07.
Well, funny thing, exit polls show that people who made up their minds in the last week or so went for Obama...Hillmentum, it was not.
The truth is, Florida knew what would happen if they moved up their primary, and they did it anyway. All this shows, is that when voters see Hillary less, they like her more.
Submitted by S-townMike on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:25.
The truth is, Florida knew what would happen if they moved up their primary, and they did it anyway.
So, they knew? So what? My question remains, has Florida's huge turn-out upped the ante and increased the chances that the Party (you know, the old one that we're supposed to be transcending?) will suspend its rules and actually seat the Florida delegates? What are the odds now?
Submitted by Sean Braisted on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:51.
The Republicans, in a 50-50 state, beat Democrats by 300 thousand votes.
In South Carolina, one of the reddest of red states, Democrats beat GOP turnout by 80K votes.
The turnout was far lower than it would've been had Democrats been able to campaign in that State. And it probably would've been even lower had there not been a ballot initiative up for a vote.
I'm perfectly fine with them getting a seat at the convention, only so long as the delegates are split up evenly between the candidates (including Edwards), or there is some other election type process taking place.
But just because Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan, she oughta get 55% of those delegates, along with whatever uncommitted delegates decide to support her...how is that fair to the people who couldn't vote for Edwards or Obama?
Submitted by Sean Braisted on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:56.
I'm not going to simply pull a random number out of my ass like you did and make a prediction. My guess is that who will or won't get seated will be determined by the delegates at the Convention. If nobody sows up the nomination, and Edwards and Obama hold a majority of the delegates already seated, than Michigan and Florida will not have a voice on the floor.
The DNC is alienating the Florida voters. The Florida voters did not make this decision. I was so glad Clinton went down to Florida to let the voters there know their vote of confidence matters.
Submitted by S-townMike on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 08:12.
pull a random number out of my ass
I was aiming a little higher. It is actually more of a wager than a prediction. It is something my gut tells me; it isn't based on double-blind scientific method. It is simply an opinion, two cents and nothing more. No matter who makes the decision--and you admitted that you were making a guess about that yourself--I believe that what the Party does with Florida delegates is a very interesting question, one that is not closed just because the candidates took some pledge that is conveniently spun as sacrosanct by whoever was going to lose in Florida.
turnout was far lower than it would've been had Democrats been able to campaign in that State.
Ya think? You're making my point for me. The turnout was huge relative to the fact that Dems did not campaign in Florida. Obama, who did not campaign, doubled Giuliani, who has campaigned in Florida since the Spaniards wiped out French Huguenots at Jacksonville. The big headline on the Dem side is not that Clinton won, in my opinion. It's that the Party's attempt to punish Floridians did not work.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 09:07.
You're making my point for me.
If you think that than you're not reading what I'm saying.
Many more, perhaps a half a million or more, would've gone out to vote on the Democratic ticket if they thought their vote would've counted for something...so if we seat the delegates and proportion them based on these results, we are disenfranchising those who didn't vote because they were operating under the assumption that the rules understood by EVERYBODY would stand.
This is a screwed up situation. You can't win the White House without Florida and/or Michigan. The DNC pissing off those voters doesn't make a lot of sense. I understand the idea of an orderly early primary process in smaller states and so forth, but is this the best way to enforce it?
As for Hillary's "win" or "vote of confidence" or whatever you want to call it, seems like it was fair and square to me. They were all on the ballot, they all campaigned the same amount in Florida (none, although Obama ran some cable ads that aired down there, not sure if Clinton did or not). Florida voters watch the news and know what happened in SC, they could all watch the SC debates, they were exposed to all the controversies, outcomes, etc. Sounds like a level playing field to me.
And I don't see anything wrong with Hillary going down there to tell them she feels their pain and to thank them for going out and voting (and voting for her) despite the mess.
Submitted by Eleanor A on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 22:15.
Well, honestly, Obama would probably get some points with voters if he were the one out there fighting to seat the delegates. He's not going to do it, because he lost in both states, but fundamentally this is an enfranchisement issue.
Frankly, I think it sets a great precedent, should we wind up in another ballot battle as in 2000/2004. Hillary's making sure she's got some credibility on the issue. I can't imagine this wouldn't have happened under the aegis of whomever won those two states, though.
______________________________________
“Don't wait. The time will never be just right.” - Napoleon Hill
Yes, Hillary won Florida. Doesn't matter, she gets no delegates.
Yes, she gets no delegates. But "no" to "it doesn't matter." All candidates were on the ballot. So, it does matter somewhat and it sure as hell doesn't hurt her.
You can't convince me that Obama supporters wouldn't have been playing a Sunshine State win up as proof after South Carolina of his viability and a further example of their candidate's Achilles-like transcendence of the "old" Democratic Party structure.
And what a rousing victory speech HRC gave
I'm not sure how that recent 11 point spread in Tennessee is good news for Hillary, or how it shows lack of momentum for Obama. Didn't Hillary have a 15 point lead in Tennessee four days ago?
Also, one of the last polls going into Florida tonight had HRC/BO/JE at 57%/27%/12%... so, these polls seem to be a tad off the actual election returns.
It's a good time to handicap the odds of those delegates actually being seated at the Convention: I'd say it jumped to 50:50 at the closing of the polls. With FL's significance in a general election, do Howard Dean and the party really want to risk alienating these voters?
Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to not answer your question. Howard Dean isn't alienating voters...you really think people are going to make a decision about who the next President is going to be, a Republican or Democrat, based on whether the DNC sat their delegates at a convention, when they knew full well from the beginning they wouldn't be sat if they moved up their primary?
Well, funny thing, exit polls show that people who made up their minds in the last week or so went for Obama...Hillmentum, it was not.
The truth is, Florida knew what would happen if they moved up their primary, and they did it anyway. All this shows, is that when voters see Hillary less, they like her more.
That was me btw.
The truth is, Florida knew what would happen if they moved up their primary, and they did it anyway.
So, they knew? So what? My question remains, has Florida's huge turn-out upped the ante and increased the chances that the Party (you know, the old one that we're supposed to be transcending?) will suspend its rules and actually seat the Florida delegates? What are the odds now?
The Republicans, in a 50-50 state, beat Democrats by 300 thousand votes.
In South Carolina, one of the reddest of red states, Democrats beat GOP turnout by 80K votes.
The turnout was far lower than it would've been had Democrats been able to campaign in that State. And it probably would've been even lower had there not been a ballot initiative up for a vote.
I'm perfectly fine with them getting a seat at the convention, only so long as the delegates are split up evenly between the candidates (including Edwards), or there is some other election type process taking place.
But just because Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan, she oughta get 55% of those delegates, along with whatever uncommitted delegates decide to support her...how is that fair to the people who couldn't vote for Edwards or Obama?
I'm not going to simply pull a random number out of my ass like you did and make a prediction. My guess is that who will or won't get seated will be determined by the delegates at the Convention. If nobody sows up the nomination, and Edwards and Obama hold a majority of the delegates already seated, than Michigan and Florida will not have a voice on the floor.
The DNC is alienating the Florida voters. The Florida voters did not make this decision. I was so glad Clinton went down to Florida to let the voters there know their vote of confidence matters.
pull a random number out of my ass
I was aiming a little higher. It is actually more of a wager than a prediction. It is something my gut tells me; it isn't based on double-blind scientific method. It is simply an opinion, two cents and nothing more. No matter who makes the decision--and you admitted that you were making a guess about that yourself--I believe that what the Party does with Florida delegates is a very interesting question, one that is not closed just because the candidates took some pledge that is conveniently spun as sacrosanct by whoever was going to lose in Florida.
turnout was far lower than it would've been had Democrats been able to campaign in that State.
Ya think? You're making my point for me. The turnout was huge relative to the fact that Dems did not campaign in Florida. Obama, who did not campaign, doubled Giuliani, who has campaigned in Florida since the Spaniards wiped out French Huguenots at Jacksonville. The big headline on the Dem side is not that Clinton won, in my opinion. It's that the Party's attempt to punish Floridians did not work.
You're making my point for me.
If you think that than you're not reading what I'm saying.
Many more, perhaps a half a million or more, would've gone out to vote on the Democratic ticket if they thought their vote would've counted for something...so if we seat the delegates and proportion them based on these results, we are disenfranchising those who didn't vote because they were operating under the assumption that the rules understood by EVERYBODY would stand.
This is a screwed up situation. You can't win the White House without Florida and/or Michigan. The DNC pissing off those voters doesn't make a lot of sense. I understand the idea of an orderly early primary process in smaller states and so forth, but is this the best way to enforce it?
As for Hillary's "win" or "vote of confidence" or whatever you want to call it, seems like it was fair and square to me. They were all on the ballot, they all campaigned the same amount in Florida (none, although Obama ran some cable ads that aired down there, not sure if Clinton did or not). Florida voters watch the news and know what happened in SC, they could all watch the SC debates, they were exposed to all the controversies, outcomes, etc. Sounds like a level playing field to me.
And I don't see anything wrong with Hillary going down there to tell them she feels their pain and to thank them for going out and voting (and voting for her) despite the mess.
Well, honestly, Obama would probably get some points with voters if he were the one out there fighting to seat the delegates. He's not going to do it, because he lost in both states, but fundamentally this is an enfranchisement issue.
Frankly, I think it sets a great precedent, should we wind up in another ballot battle as in 2000/2004. Hillary's making sure she's got some credibility on the issue. I can't imagine this wouldn't have happened under the aegis of whomever won those two states, though.
______________________________________
“Don't wait. The time will never be just right.” - Napoleon Hill