digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at time.com

Recount: New Docudrama Could Influence Election - TIME

time.com — Even if the primary is settled by the time Recount airs (or by the time you read this), some Democrats will feel bitter and cheated and will invoke the powerful language of 2000 all over again. If Barack Obama gets the nomination, the anger will center on the primaries in Michigan and you-know-where. (Democrats! Disenfranchised! In Florida!)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yedrellow, on 05/11/2008, -11/+19Clinton is the republicans' best asset.
  • StanleyKoolPrik, on 05/11/2008, -13/+16I stopped reading after the first sentence, which read:
    "After George W. Bush won Florida in 2000--O.K., I apologize to my Democrat readers for legitimizing Bush by using the word won."

    This is a piss-poorly written sentence -- something you would expect from some two-bit blog, or a Digg comment, but certainly not Time magazine.
    • b04155, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I stopped reading it too so my comment may not be based on the premise of the article. However, in regards to certain states not having their vote count because they decided to break party rules and jump the line... TOO BAD! The rules were known and were broken. It is much more fair to abide by rules that were already in effect and not allow votes to count than to recount (in any fashion) and put a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
      If we recount, the results will be the same for whomever wins: The rules don't mean a thing and he/she shouldn't have been declared the winner... let's all whine and bitch about it now.
      Or... he/she won without getting a recount so they had no influence over the matter and an issue that wasn't under their control in the first place was handled according to set rules instead of making ***** up as we go along.
      • StanleyKoolPrik, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1My comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. I was just pointing out that a Time ***** magazine article began with an incomplete sentence. This shocks me, and it should shock everyone.

        O how the mighty have fallen.
    • johnchaney3, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2It is a poorly written story that appears to be lifted from the huffingtonpost...a real rant....
    • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"Democrat readers" is a term only Republicans use. We're Democrats and we're Democratic.
    • Ryosen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2If you had read through the next few sentences, you would have realized that the sentence was a dramatic narrative license and was quite valid as written. Next time, don't be so quick to get online and flame.
  • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7I just can't believe FL didn't learn anything from 2000. Have we?
    • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Florida was a statistical tie, and we have no way of resolving a statistical tie - I haven't even seen it discussed. I vote we count Florida first so some other state gets the honors next time.
      • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yup, since Florida was a tie, I say the only reasonable thing to do would have been to do a state or fully national re-vote. A full re-vote something like 2 weeks later or something would have brought probably lots more voters to the polls and the result would probably have been much clearer.
  • Technobull, on 05/11/2008, -8/+16As a Floridian, the primary vote must NOT COUNT!

    Hillary and Barrack both agreed that Florida won't count and no campaigning was permitted. Hillary broke those rules just before the primary while Barrack stood firm and damaged his image. This corrupted the entire primary. Half the voters around here thought that the Primary was canceled because it wouldn't count. No, Hillary wants it to count since it would swing a few more delegates in her favor...is this the *****, dare I say the word "flip-floping" our party needs. Hillary and Barrack made their decision. The party made their decision. That ship has sailed.

    Only a REVOTE or dare I say CAUCUS legitimize a vote in Florida.
    • mrgreen4242, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Same for Michigan, where I live. I didn't bother to vote the Democratic Primary because there was only one candidate on the ballot, who I would have never voted for, and the results were not supposed to count. I'm honestly not all that torn up about it. Just don't count the results as promised and I get on with it.
    • rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I call *****. No one thought the Primary was off and if they did they were idiots, Their were questions on the ballots which were not just "who do you like best" which were past by a slim margin becuase some idiots like you didn't show up to vote. Ever ask yourself why 1.5 million people voted they were trying to out number republicans and to you know help govern Florida, most of that happens at a local level.
      • coup, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2i thought it was off. i guess i was an idiot
        • rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Yes you were and because of you another tax cut was given to rich people on property taxes. How hard is it to you know read what is being voted for and educates yourself? They don;t just cancel votes on Amendment's because your vote for Obama may or may not count.
        • Technobull, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0WTF ever dude. I am not saying people are smart...***** they elected bush 1 1/2 times! But still, there was some confusion. Sadly, we do not have an informed populace about issues other than national elections. But you my friend are an *****.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1There's another issue in Florida that no one ever mentions. Since everyone was told that their vote for a candidate would NOT count, many people didn't even bother to vote. However, the homeowners (mostly an older crowd, so more aligned with Hillary) still had an incentive to go to the polls to vote on a property tax bill. Renters (mostly younger people who tend to favor Obama) had no incentive to go to the polls because the property tax measure didn't affect them.

        Either way you look at it, the votes were skewed in Florida and can't be counted "as is".
    • Ryosen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Barack didn't damage his image, he solidified it as an honest person, while Clinton demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rules and fair, honest proceedings. And you can bet that she would be screaming bloody murder against a recount or any reconsideration were the roles reversed and she was winning the primaries
  • Jenadae, on 05/11/2008, -3/+15/sigh

    The rules are set. You break them, you're penalized. Did we in Florida have a choice? No, and I doubt Michigan did either. The people of these states should be going after just that, their states.
    • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Although the DNC should have anticipated the problem they were causing and handled it differently from the beginning.
      • Malacandra95, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Nonsense. You make a rule with the expectation that it'll be honored, and you create consequences to discourage non-observance. The DNC did these things. The FL and MI legislatures ignored the rules and the consequences at the peril of the voters. The responsibility is theirs, and FL and MI voters should hold them responsible.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"Handle it differently" is a convenient term lacking actual solution. Florida and Michigan were warned. They were warned and then they did it anyway. So they were punished. Florida voted UNANIMOUSLY to do it. The Republicans cut their delegates in half.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The Republicans chose the voting date in Florida. If people are mad, they should be mad at Florida's Republican leaders who caused this mess by picking a date that violated the rules of BOTH parties.
    • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2DNC didn't think this was going to go on for so long. Democratic primaries haven't gone for so long since 1968.
  • blarch, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1I wonder if it will villify Nader.....
  • taradisiac, on 05/11/2008, -10/+4If I were a Democrat in Florida or Michigan I would vote for McCain.
  • zspade, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4Quick everyone, ignore this! Don't let the MSM think we're interested.
  • Texmurphy01, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1If anyone has a link to this show (I know it hasn't been aired yet), speak up!
  • Leadman584, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Kind of ironic that Al Gore's VP selection will likely be John McCain's as well. What is up with Lieberman?
  • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4"Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this Presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party, or to the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence. If they were to succeed, the U.S.A. will have lost its sovereignty, and there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life on this planet."
    Posted at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3520threat_t ...
    • sagien, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Wow. It's hard to believe how much that article just plain talked straight out of its ass.

      Speculation about the NC Obama win not being legitimate?! Are you kidding me? It swung that way so quickly because the regions where Obama was trouncing Clinton all came in at the same time.

      And nobody's trying to shut down Clinton's campaign except for how the way the nation voted.

      She lost. Fair and square.

      You and the idiot who wrote that article should scrounge up some dignity and apologize to Digg for trying to shovel that drivel down our throats.
      • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5> And nobody's trying to shut down Clinton's campaign

        Except for a bunch of probably fake usernames constantly Digging "Stop democracy, no need to vote, Obama already won" kind of Digg stories for the past few months.

        Florida and Michigan represent 368 delegates. Unpledged delegates vote for THE BEST CANDIDATE. Stop arguying that politicians propositions and voters voting shouldn't count.

        If you are so confident about Obama, then why not let the last 6 states vote, why not count votes from Florida and Michigan or preferably do a full re-vote with full campaigns in Florida and Michigan. Why isn't any Obama supporters campaigning for full and fair re-votes in Florida and Michigan?
        • XopherY, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Because a fair revote is impossible. (See my comment below.)
          • Charbax, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1A fair revote is totally possible. That is like the main principle of democracy, if you don't really know what the people voted the first time, then ask the people to vote again. And do not disenfranchise anyone, just as every other state, anyone should be allowed to showup with an ID, register as a Decmorat if they weren't previously and vote for the candidate that they think should represent the democratic party. Be a democrat for a change. Let them campaign and do a re-vote in Florida and Michigan, otherwise there is no other way then to give Hillary Clinton most of the 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida.
        • sagien, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Way to cut out part of a sentence I wrote and use it in a different context.

          Classic ***** campaigning that's been plaguing our country for the last decade. Kudos.
          • Charbax, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The Obama camp's Digg startegy is worse then anything else in online campaigning. I don't know where the Obama online task force organizes, but I can see it's totally undemocratic. The way you Obama fanboys spam Digg, blogs, and all online polls making it look like he has more votes is just plain anti-democratic behaviour.
          • sagien, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1he.. has.. more votes..
  • XopherY, on 05/11/2008, -3/+10As a disenfranchised Michigander whose candidate of choice didn't appear on the ballot, I'd prefer the delegates NOT be seated. However, since public perceptions are being so skewed by the Machiavellian Clinton narrative, I think they'll have to be. Democrats can't risk alienating Michigan (or Florida) voters in November.

    And I take exception to the TIME article's positing of only two scenarios - Obama wins and MI and FL are not counted, or Clinton somehow wins (presumably with the MI and FL delegations). But I believe that there is a third scenario that negates the premise of this article completely - MI and FL are seated as is and Obama STILL wins. (And I predicts that this is what will happen.) Where's the "disenfranchisement" then? (Other than in the sense that I started my comment with.)

    Also, there's another disenfranchisement issue that we never hear about. If things had gone as the Clinton campaign had planned and it was "all over" on Super Tuesday, why don't we consider the voters of the remaining states who have primaries that follow to be "disenfranchised"? In this scenario, does anyone think we'd be hearing the "presumptive nominee" Clinton crying foul about all those voters' voice being taken away? After all, this is the very reason that Michigan and Florida wanted their primaries moved up in the first place!

    Anyone who thinks that Clinton seriously cares about the voters of Michigan or Florida is mistaken. We're just pawns in a desperate game.

    If we can ever get through this primary season, reform should be the first topic of discussion in the Democratic Party for the next time around. "Tradition" doesn't count for much in my book when it's inherently undemocratic.

    Let's get rules in place that make sense and are fair and then STICK TO THEM!
    • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Why don't you actually prefer a FULL RE-VOTE, with full campaigning by the two candidates in your state. You could vote as the last or second last state in this primary, thus have your votes be even more decisive.

      It doesn't even take a couple of days to organize such a full re-vote. Seriously, it's easy to do a re-vote, why not do it.
      • XopherY, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6I would, except that it would be fatally flawed. There are two scenarios for a revote:
        1. Exclude those who voted in the Republican primary in January, or
        2. Leave it open for anyone to participate in (since we don't have state recognized party registration in MI)

        The problem with scenario 1 is that many Democrats, recognizing the futility of voting in the Democratic primary, crossed over and voted in the Republican primary. (I don't agree with this tactic at all, but many people did it.)

        The problem with scenario 2 is that then you'll have lots of Republicans who have absolutely no incentive not to cross over and skew the process. (Operation Chaos, anyone?) They'll literally have been able to vote twice.

        The results of either of those elections would be just as illegitimate as the results we have now. And can you imagine the circus atmosphere we'd have?

        No, there's no good way to unspill the milk. To minimize the damage, I'd say that it's better to seat the delegates as is. The super-delegates are all beginning to line up behind Sen. Obama anyway. It soon won't make a difference to the final results.

        The only thing I don't like about that, is the fact that it doesn't punish the idiots (I used to like our Governor) who got us into this mess. But hopefully a bunch of those establishment Dems will being going down with the Clintons' sinking ship.
        • Charbax, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I think everyone should be allowed to vote for the Democratic primary. The democratic primary is all about bringing more people to the democratic party.

          If you don't have a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, the only solution will be to give all delegates to Clinton in Michigan and Give her a large advatange out of the 210 delegates from Florida. Just wait and see, there is not going to be any back-room comprimises here.
        • XopherY, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I don't understand your logic at all. (I don't think you have any.) You haven't addressed any of the concerns I made above.

          Your factional loyalty has clouded your thinking. You only seem to want whatever will achieve your ends, regardless of whether it's democratic or even makes any sense.

          Why, pray tell, should Clinton get all of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan? In what way would that honor voter's intent?

          (By the way, the congressional district conventions have already been held and most of the uncommitted delegates went to Obama supporters. So, you'd have to overturn those results to give Clinton all of Michigan's delegates. But I don't imagine that concerns you much.)

          You'd make a most excellent Soviet aparatchik.
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The problem with seating all of the delegates for Michigan is that Hillary is insisting she gets to count all of people who voted for her (even though she had the only name on the ballot) and Obama gets nothing. She claims Obama has ZERO votes because he chose to take his name off the ballot and therefore no votes should count in his favor. She was a slimy bitch for not taking her name off the ballot in the first place and now she's using this ***** excuse to try to be the ONLY candidate who gets to count votes in Michigan. The fact that Hillary keeps insisting this is the way it has to be shows her complete lack of honesty and character.
      • Charbax, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Obama removed his name from the ballot cause he knew he would loose in Michigan. That's a really undemocratic way for Obama to disenfranchise Michigan voters.

        Do a re-vote or give all the delegates to Hillary Clinton. That's all there is to it.
        • XopherY, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Saying it doesn't make it so. That ISN'T all there is to it. That's a very false dichotomy.

          You clearly have no interest in a rational examination of the issues. Fortunately cooler heads will prevail and we'll see neither of your to scenarios come to pass.
  • Charbax, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13The 2000 election result was completely insane, the result was catastrophic. No country in the world has taken the USA seriously during the 8 years of the Bush presidency. And Bush claiming that he stands for democracy is laughed at by the world.
    • XopherY, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Totally agree.

      I wonder if all of this isn't a tempest in a teapot. I wouldn't put it past the current occupants of the Oval Office to attack Iran in October, declare a national emergency and cancel the elections.

      It worries me that they seem so apathetic about having such a pathetic candidate.
    • chukd, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Why is it everyone ignores the facts that Bush won all the recount scenarios? Whether you like it or not, he won the popular vote in Florida. Granted, he ran on an idea then completely discarded it. The US isn't better off 8 years later. However, he still won the popular vote in Florida, there are books written on it. Check it out on Amazon.
  • detokaal, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4Bush won Florida in 2000. Period. Let the pro-Gore people tell you themselves for the last time then let it go:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan- ...
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A126 ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE. ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_reco ...
    • dswinscoe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5oh please, even the articles you cite aren't conclusive, so stop with the typical neocon "cut-and-dried" BS; considering the travesties of the last 8 years, I am far from "letting it go." Especially, after repug shill, Rush Limbaugh's recent "Operation Chaos," I'm reminded that fighting dirty ala Karl Rove (voter fraud strategies, etc.) and even cheating are all legitimate means to a winning end - who gives an f about honor, dignity or truth, as long as the RIGHT guy wins?
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_ad ...
      • Chordonblue, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I agree, and there shouldn't be any of this 'cut and dried' stuff on the Dem side either. YOUR VOTES SHOULD COUNT TOO! Something you drilled into Republicans not so long ago but seem to want to discard now.

        Don't talk to me about fighting dirty - your side were the ones who essentially picked our candidate for us first. We are now helping to pick yours. Great how we can all get along, eh?
  • Omega037, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Didn't the fact that he definitely won in 2004 kinda nix the whole unelected/no popular vote thing? I mean, though I disagreed with them after Al Gore conceded, I could see the reason why some might have argued that he shouldn't be in office. However, after the 2004 election, he had the legitimacy of winning a clear cut victory which in a way grandfathered the election from 2000 into it. In other words, if the voters were truly taken advantage of and disenfranchised, the fact that he won the second election by a larger margin must have proven that he did a good job. So, either Bush did a very good job from 2001 to 2004, or he won the first election. Take your pick.
  • bhod, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0gobama!
  • chase001, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1About time. Since the Corpo-Media won't cover the treasonous coup of 2000, make a movie about it.
  • vincent44, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Danny Strong, the writer of this film, was obviously anxious to drop his day job as a backgound actor on the likes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Gilmore Girls. So he set out to cobble together a story that he could sell to some big time outfit like HBO. His pitch was to make the recount result turn on the fact that the Democrats were a bunch of weak-kneed wimps. HBO bit and the rest is history.

    What isn't history is the film, and don't look for it there. Danny will tell you that his departures from the facts are, uh, "dramatic license." Now that's weak-kneed. Blithely chalkling off distortions to dramatic license while simultaneously proclaiming reverence for the faithful preservation of history is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Like it or not, today's viewing public increasingly treats as fact what is fed to them as "docu-drama," unaware that in most cases they are consuming an ounce of “docu” to every gallon of “drama.” And like it or not, what they treat as fact becomes fact for others in this generation and those that follow. While producers of this species of film say their goal is simply to entertain, it is plain they also appreciate that viewers of this genre are more “entertained” if they believe they are watching what actually occurred. The possibility that the portrayals or situations are not one and the same with historical fact is typically never considered. In fact, HBO sells this film so as to take advantage of that confusion. According to them, this is "the story of the 2000 presidential election." Read: "Trust us. No suspension of disbelief necessary."
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.