March 10, 2008
Student Group Urges New Primaries for Democrats in Florida and Michigan
A national student group is adding its voice to those who are urging the Democratic Party to hold do-over primary contests in Florida and Michigan this spring so that the states’ voters can have an official say in choosing the party’s presidential nominee.
The Student Association for Voter Empowerment — a Washington-based, nonprofit, student-run group that seeks to increase civic participation among young people — said today that “it is imperative we grant the young citizens of Florida and Michigan the full weight of the democratic system and put to rest all notions that their voices may go unheard.”
The Democratic National Committee has prohibited the two states’ delegates (a total of 366) from being seated and officially counted at the national convention because they violated party rules by scheduling their primaries in January.
Hillary Rodham Clinton won both states’ disputed contests and has argued for their delegates to be counted. Barack Obama, whose name was not even on the Michigan ballot, has argued that the party should not change the rules after the fact.
The two states have a total of 366 delegates, and The Washington Post argues that Mrs. Clinton’s primary victories last week put renewed pressure on Democratic Party officials to resolve the dispute over how to handle Florida and Michigan since neither she nor Mr. Obama is now likely to win enough delegates to capture the nomination before the summer convention.
Sara Hebel | Posted on Monday March 10, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Karl Rove Greeted With Student Protests in Iowa
Next: Clinton and Obama Campaign at Mississippi Colleges in Advance of Today's Primary
African-Americans are the base of the Democrat party. So Obama can win the nomination based on their votes. However, African-Americans are not the base of the whole nation. Therefore, Obama can not win the General Election. As a Democrat, you should keep this in your mind. Otherwise, you will lose the General Election.
— frank Mar 10, 05:51 PM #
Frank, you are making a huge and inaccurate assumption that only African-Americans will vote for Obama. This has already been proven false.
— Dan Mar 11, 03:51 PM #
African-Americans are not “the base” of the Democratic party. If one population is, it is white women. White people still make up the vast majority of the democratic party, and women tend to be more on the democrat side, whereas men are more on the republican side.
Looking at exit polls, all sorts of groups vote for both Clinton and Obama. True, African-Americans are overwhelmingly for Obama (like 90%), but they are still a small percentage of the electorate, so Obama also has done well with other populations in order to maintain his lead (such as white women, though Clinton has an edge with this group).
Most notably, Obama has done particularly well with independents and republicans who choose to vote in the primary (and not because they see him as the “weaker candidate” in the general election — national polls suggest he has a slightly better chance than Clinton against McCain).
Though polls currently put Obama ahead of McCain by a greater margin than Clinton, it is too early to tell which democrat would fare better against McCain. But it’s clear that the statement you made about African-Americans makes no sense. Maybe it makes sense for particular states (Obama won South Carolina by a huge margin in the primary in part due to the black vote, but he is unlikely to capture it in the general), but it doesn’t make sense nationwide.
— Kat Mar 11, 04:03 PM #
Of course Florida and Michigan should have their delegates seated. Three cheers for Florida and Michigan for refusing to allow the Democratic powers to dictate when a state may hold a primary. In fact, shame on the other states who dutifully took their places at the back of the line. Republican or democrat, one has to admire people who have the guts to stand up to power.
— Bill Wiggins Mar 11, 04:21 PM #
Does no one have a problem with this whole idea? This is changing the rules in mid-stream.. i.e., ILLEGAL. But then, that’s what the democrats wanted to do in Florida in 2000 — change the rules after the election so that they could create.. err, find… more chads to select Gore president… You cannot change the rules after the fact!
Florida and Michican elected (no pun intended) to go forward with their early primaries KNOWING full well that the DNC had “ruled” that their primary votes wouldn’t count and would not result in delegates being awarded to any candidates and would preclude any voting by delegates at the convention.
There is no disenfranchisement, there is no conspiracy not to count their votes in the primary, i.e., not awarding any candidate with delegates and not havng any delegates at the convention. The two states knew full well that this was what they were opting for by going ahead with primary dates the DNC said were too early!
Now spilt milk is being cried over and the other comments are taking for granted that it just should be done and that the rules should just be changed! If rules were going to be changed, then it should have been done BEFORE any primaries or at least before the “too early” ones.
The votes DO NOT COUNT now. There are no delegates from Michigan or Florida. They agreed to this! Period! End of Sentence (so to speak)
— bb Mar 11, 04:22 PM #
We saw this year that this “thirst to be first” has created chaos. Super Tuesday was a farce, with so many trying to be first, the candidates campaigned by polling and not appearances. Howard Dean explained the schedule rules aptly. If there were no rules,” he said, “states would schedule their primaries at Halloween.” Michigan and Florida played chicken with the national party and lost. Remember, this is a political party, not a politburo slate. The Democratic Party of Florida and Michigan knew they were jeopardizing their constituency and went ahead anyway. Now they cry foul. The voters of those two states should be stringing up their state party leaders for disenfranchising them, and stop blaming the DNC. And the joke’s on the states’ parties, anyway. Had they waited until their appointed time, they would have gotten the “influence” they were so desperately seeking. As for Hillary wanting the bogus results to be counted? It’s why so many dislike her and why she will never be President.
— Client #9 Mar 11, 06:37 PM #
I’m a Michigan voter and I could not vote for Obama (my preferred candidate) because he was not on the ballot. I decided to vote for a lesser-known candidate, because I didn’t think the whole “uncommitted” thing would work (though I now regret that decision.) Many of my Obama-supporter friends voted in the republican primary, because they could make an influence there. Others stayed at home, and of course some did vote “uncommitted”.
I hate this talk about how not seating the delegates makes MI voters disenfranchised. I would feel disenfranchised if the delegates ARE seated, because I didn’t even have the option for voting for my candidate! Why don’t people realize this?!
What I want most is for both MI and FL to have some sort of re-vote — a caucus, mail-in, or primary. I realize a primary may be prohibitively expensive, so perhaps it has to be a caucus, even though that “favors” Obama (I put that word in quotes, because if Clinton’s campaign was more organized and/or people were very excited about her, then a caucus wouldn’t favor Obama). It’s either that or don’t even think about seating the delegates. Again, I’m actually strongly in favor of having a re-vote in these possibly pro-Clinton states, even as a primary! But it has to be fair. Allowing the delegates to be seated “as is” would be a completely horrible idea, and would disenfranchise voters from ALL states.
— Elizabeth Mar 12, 01:27 AM #
You can’t go back and change the rules!
How about this: After your school wins a football game, it is decided that the referee made a bad call and that had the flag not been thrown, the opponent’s guy would have continued on for a TD, so the opponent is awarded 6 points, giving them the win. Is that fair?
Or a basketball game — after your school’s team wins, it is decided that the refs should have called goal-tending on a particular play, so 2 points is added to the opponent’s score, changing the outcome. Is that fair?
Once a “game” is played, the rules cannot be changed! The “rules” set for the democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida fall into this category. I do not understand how changing the rules post-“game” is considered fair in these comments!
Of course, the selecting of a presidential candidate is much more important than a collegiate sports event, but the analogy still fits — changing the rules after the primary still is unfair to those who participated and those who declined to participate because they understood and abided by the rules! Having a “do over” also changes the rules! Should other states who held early (but still “legal” under DNC rules) be allowed a “do over” if they are willing to come up with the money to fund it? Why not? If rules can be changed post-“game” than any state can have a do-over.
— bb Mar 12, 10:45 AM #
Oops! …THEN any state can… sorry. typing too fast for my own good.
— bb Mar 12, 10:47 AM #
What gives a Democrat or for that matter Republican National Committee the right to tell a Sovereign State when it may hold an election? The Democrat Party has a choice. Either seat the Florida and Michigan delegation, or see the electoral votes of those two states go Republican in the Fall.
— Joseph F Foster Mar 12, 03:32 PM #
Joseph F Foster — when a national committee is the entity that “sponsors” the convention and the delegates to the convention, it has the power to tell those sovereign states how and when they may elect the delegates to the convention.
— bb Mar 12, 05:20 PM #