Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're absolutely right, the vote was not by any means fair, for any candidate. But since the DNC has refused to pay for revotes (and the Obama camp, unlike Clinton, hasn't offered to help raise money for one), the only option we have is to count the votes that were cast. Period.
You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.
You're right, it's an option that will upset millions of voters in both state and likely hand two large electoral states to the Republicans in November. Novel idea.
It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen. If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win. I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.
I could be wrong, however.
The racial undertones of this election are really, really annoying.
No, the other option is not to count the votes, or to give a 50% delegate count that won't effect the outcome of the nomination process, which is what they will probably do.
I don't understand your reasoning. You say that because the vote wasn't fair, it must be counted?
Florida seems headed for McCain, but Michigan is still essentially neck and neck, with several months to the election. I don't think anything has necessarily been handed to anyone.
Yeah, that's the problem. There's no way to tell how the votes would have gone if the DNC hadn't ruled the votes wouldn't be counted. There's no way to tell how many people stayed home and who they would have voted for.
Certainly near everyone that was GOING to end up voting, voted.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html
Errr....headed for McCain if you put Obama on the ticket, it seems.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html
Errr....headed for McCain if you put Obama on the ticket, it seems.
It could, but I don't see the DNC letting it happen. If the unpledged delegates throw the election to the white candidate, regardless of what you want to argue about how close they are in popular vote or whatever, the Dems are going to do serious damage to their relationship with a constituency they need to win. I think the DNC is probably going to do anything it can to ensure that doesn't happen.
I could be wrong, however.
I don't think you can say that's "certain" at all. Just showing a record turnout isn't hard evidence of this assertion. Florida has something like 10 million registered voters.
Similar problems in Michigan.
What bemuses me is that I don't think Obama supporters really care anymore if the Dems win. Otherwise they'd be considering the fact that Clinton is the more likely winner against McCain.
A constituency they need to win? Blacks will vote Democratic, I think that's a safe assumption, or they won't vote at all. If Obama wins the nomination, do you realize how many voters in Southern states (and many other states) will go to the polls just to keep a black man out of office? Trust me: a lot.
That is what I meant, but the margin isn't that large, and there is still plenty of time before the general election.
Except that in 2000 about 500,000 voted in the primary. In 2004, about 750,000 did. And this time it was about 1,750,000.
Just Dems, mind you.
I support Obama, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I'm not going to vote Dem just to vote Dem. Your assumption is that everyone who supports Obama would have Hillary as their second choice, and therefore they should do what is best for the party and just support her as the stronger candidate.
Similar problems in Michigan.
What bemuses me is that I don't think Obama supporters really care anymore if the Dems win. Otherwise they'd be considering the fact that Clinton is the more likely winner against McCain.
But we don't know what could happen, so isn't it smarter to go with the safer bet? If Clinton's already ahead, isn't it more likely that she's got a better chance to increase or maintain her lead than it is for Obama to make up an approximately 9% deficit?
