Politics 2008:The Caucuses and The Dem/Rep Conventions

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.

I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

[SummerChild]

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Originally Posted by TonyB06

...if you're the head of the DNC heading into a close fall election, do you want to risk Mich/Fla Democrats feeling (rightly or wrongly) like they've been cut out of the process, and considering the possibility of sitting home in November?

I see your point, but pragmatically don't you think it's in the Dem party's best interest to find some way out of this morass, so they can reasonably count on these voters turning out on Nov. 5?

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SummerChild

TonyB,

I think that I would think about it like this:
I give the voters of Michigan and Florida much credit in terms of being intellectual saavy enough to know that their own state, and not the Democratic party, is the group that prevented their votes from being counted. Now, Florida could actually go Republican if people sat at home. However, Michigan, with the state that Detroit and some of the other areas are in economically - do you think that they would *really* sit at home in November and let Republicans go out and turn Michigan red. Come on now. Detroit is experiencing one of the worst fallouts of this economy and it is likely spreading over Michigan (although i'm not sure).

I doubt the people of Michigan will sit at home in November in large numbers.

And Florida, well, I also worry about a do-over in Florida b/c there is always so much shadiness with the voting down there. A paper vote? How untrackable is that? That might be worse than the Bush v. Gore debacle only for smaller potatoes.

SC

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him.

[SummerChild]

Tony, you're so funny.
I actually think that it would be a bad idea to allow the do-over whether it would turn out to be in Obama's favor or not. I think that it hurts the notice function in theory. That being, how can anyone ever have notice of what is going to happen (w/ these presidential elections - or at least what to expect to happen) if we keep moving the target, changing our minds, etc. It is most unsettling to think that A was the case for months and then to think that B could be the case now that other factors that were not contingencies to A, have come from out of left field. The uncertainty in the last two presidential elections b/c of craziness like this and the Supreme Court jumping in last time arguably where they had no business and then writing an opinion that is regarded by many legal experts as not being incredibly sturdy - this is craziness. We need to bring back some stability to the process and I think that that starts with abiding by the rules that are outlined at the beginning...no matter who wins.

I don't want to take a chance with disaffection either so I hear you. It's just like - what next? What if there was a movement now to try to change so that superdelegates do not count? There would be the same failure of notice to those superdelegates albeit they are way fewer in number than the populations of Michigan and Florida - but hey, one could argue that they influence could be pivotal in this election so it would not be insignificant to change the rule midstream here.

This election is becoming a big mess. Why won't people just play by the rules and stick to the issues? And may the best man (or woman) win.

SC

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Well, super lawyer that you are, I know you hold it down intellecutally over most of us

Of course, your speculations are as valid as mine are on this, but I still think the safer political play is to take possible voter disaffection (among your base) out of play.

Besides Obama -- especially if dude is not going to more forcefully challenge HRC on her flip-flop on this -- cannot be seen as "not wanting" a solution to this, it'll look like he's afraid of the outcome.

Depending on how this plays out, it'll be interesting to see how voter motivation polls in Michigan/ Fla. i.e. how likely are you to vote --strongly, somewhat, likely, not likely, etc... Obama is bringing a lot of newer, first time voters to the process. are they are more easily soured on the process (likely to sit home) if they feel they've been played?

Of course, as a former Obama law student, I'm sure he could put you on payroll and have you canvas Michigan from Labor Day through Nov. 5 and just put it on lock for him.