What is Digg?123 Comments
- bluevillage, on 05/27/2008, -4/+63Amazing that this is the first article we've seen on this, most obvious, facts against Clinton's "disenfranchisement" argument.
- BrownMoses, on 05/27/2008, -4/+44The whole Florida/Michigan thing is the best example of how Clinton supporters willingly accept the fact she'll say one thing, then say the exact opposite. They accept that she is willing to do anything to win the nomination, so every time stories showing her doing the sort of things that have driven so many voters to support Obama such as faking accents, making "as far as I know" comments, as so forth they actually thing she's showing her fighting spirit and how tough she is. What they don't seem to appreciate is that these sorts of things are only act to remind Obama supporters why they want him to be the next President and not her.
- livegreenordie, on 05/27/2008, -1/+28 I tried to view the pledge from her website but the page was removed-interesting?
- ileftfark, on 05/27/2008, -0/+18Let's look at the bigger picture here: No matter how you dice it, this fiasco is a lose-lose situation. Do we disenfranchise voters by not allowing their vote to count? Or do we disenfranchise the non-voters by counting the votes in an "unsanctioned election"? I personally would rather reward people that voted, but in what capacity, I'm not sure...
There is no way this is going to be settled in a way in which people will be satisfied. This isn't something you can pin on either candidate, although they seem to differ on a resolution.
The problem begins within the bowels of the Democratic party, which is really is in need of a complete overhaul. While I'm certainly not Republican, I'm not a Democrat either- but it's clear which machine is more organized. Howard Dean has taken a soft-line stance during the entire proceedings, and the Party should have known from the beginning that this would cause a disturbance that may eventually incite riots (you don't wanna piss off Detroit, seriously). Florida and Michigan should have never been allowed to move their primaries, knowing that ***** was going to get ***** up. Yes, they broke the rules. But that decision was made by Party elite; not the hundreds of thousands of citizens that have every right as the rest of us to be heard. So now what? *****, I don't know. I post on Digg in my spare time. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that this ridiculous farce of an organization needs to get their ***** together if they plan on keeping their control in the House and plan on having a Democratic President. - mercurio, on 05/27/2008, -3/+19Hillary's campaign has really destroyed the recently-restored image of the Clintons. This mess about Florida and Michigan is just another issue against this promise of a new Clinton era. The potential that Billary 08 had was bolstered by our memory of the previous administration--which looks pretty good in light of the Bush administration. Now, we're seeing more of the seedy side of the Clintons than I can even recall from the height of the Clinton presidency--and it's stripping away the recent shine that nostalgia has provided. I didn't care too much about Bill lying about Monica, while he kept the rest of the US interests moving forward. But this nonsensical lying, flip-flopping and crying wolf about issues against a party member, is enough to add a few stains to this recently fond memory for the Clintons.
- fallen1004, on 05/27/2008, -2/+17HRC's logic gets destroyed by math. Math shall set you free.
- NelsonR, on 05/27/2008, -3/+16Queen Hillary and King Bill do not appreciate losing. Changing the ground rules by an individual, even when they signed an agreement, means nothing if it leads to victory.
Would you really want these type of disgusting humans in the White House, Bush is already there. Enough is enough. - doctechnical, on 05/27/2008, -3/+14FTA: "The fundamental point is that a contest should be governed by the rules agreed to in advance. Period."
Absolutely. But "rules" do not apply to the Clintons, mortal. - RoadDoggFL, on 05/27/2008, -3/+13I was actually back home in Florida for the vote. I went with my wife to the Everglades instead because everybody knew that it wasn't going to count. The only reason anybody showed up to vote at all was for the proposed homestead exemption legislation.
The votes definitely shouldn't count. - gsadamb, on 05/27/2008, -1/+11The difference is that in Florida and Michigan, they KNEW that their votes wouldn't count, which most certainly kept some people from going to the polls.
- nascentia, on 05/27/2008, -5/+15Ridiculous and undemocratic? Wow, nice rhetoric there. How is it ridiculous that the states were punished for knowingly violating party rules? It's not like this came out of nowhere, there was plenty of warning going months back.
If any of the DNC had a problem with it, they didn't do anything about it.
If the voters had a problem, they didn't bother writing their legislators or newspapers to try and do anything about it.
We all (and I say we because unlike so many others blabbering about Florida without any real knowledge, I actually live and vote here) knew it was coming and let it happen.
That's what you get when you knowingly break the rules that you helped set. The DNC can change them after this election cycle if they want, but you can't go changing the rules mid-game. THAT is undemocratic. That is just flat-out wrong and unethical.
The votes in FL and MI shouldn't count in any way because they weren't "real" votes. Just look back to 2000, when CNN and Fox called Florida for Gore early on, and Republicans in many of the northern counties didn't show up. That was with only an hour left in the GENERAL ELECTION, and it made that huge of an impact on voter trends (counties which had gone 80+_percent Republican in 1996 were overwhelmingly won by Dems. after that erroneous call.)
So here, when people have months in advance to know that their candidates won't be campaigning and their votes won't count, it's clear that thousands stayed home.
The states should have followed the rules. Period. - ileftfark, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8While you are correct in saying that the State Government (state legislators) moved to change the date of Florida's primary, the Democrats didn't exactly go kicking and screaming: the bill passed, 118-0.
- GroundhogBoy, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9Florida and Michigan thought that the DNC was bluffing when they threatened everyone to stop the leapfrogging of the primary dates. This isn't a problem that just started this year, but was addressed by current Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe in 2004. He's the one who came up with the penalties.
If Florida and Michigan are allowed to seat delegates as the current votes stand, the DNC will have absolutely no credibility or authority over their own candidate selection process. Which, by the way, for all of the people crying about disenfranchisement and Constitution giving you the right to vote, isn't a right. Look up the history of party conventions and presidential candidate selection if you doubt me. - makenshin, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8It does seem wrong to punish voters for a decision that was not theirs, but unfortunately the decision was theirs. At the heart of American voting policies, is representation. Their representatives who they voted for, voted for them. If they do not get to vote because of it, maybe they should consider voting for someone else next time their representatives are up for re-election.
I honestly do not feel Florida and Michigan's votes should be counted. Doing so would set a precedent, which basically lets other states know they can go against the national party and just get a slap on the wrist. It is actually a very important decision and is lose-lose-lose-lose (basically lose from any angle), just that the national party needs to decide on which loss hurts the democratic party least. I'd like to say that thinking long-term is most important, but the outcome of this particular general election is very important. - juniorb, on 05/28/2008, -3/+10Yes, the voters in Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised once already, because their elected officials can't seem to follow the rules. The point is that now if you suddenly enfranchise those who did vote, you have a situation where people who would have voted didn't, because they were following the rules, and a situation in Michigan where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Enfranchising Florida and Michigan is two wrongs trying to make a right. It's better to leave them off the primary table, and fix the problem after the general election.
As the author rightfully states, this will set a precedent for how primaries are run in the future. It's further proof of how easy it is to game the system. Truth be told, I expect the officials involved in this decision to act as incompetently and with as much self-serving interest as they and their colleagues have always acted. - makenshin, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8Hillary is getting too involved in this issue and making it personal. It's a decision that the DNC should be making and the candidates should not be involved in. By her getting involved, she will be hurting Obama in the general election. Everyone pretty much knows he's going to win the primary. It does make the primaries closer, but she is raising the chances of the GOP winning in the general election. I think the candidates should stay out of this issue, as they both signed agreements about this issue.
- MBDyer, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6It's not like the Michigan primary came as a surprise to anyone. It's been discussed for years. Iowa and New Hampshire have been at the forefront of the primary season for 20 years. The Florida and Michigan primary moves were designed to change that. Everyone knew that we wouldn't get delegates, but that was okay if it got Michigan into the national spotlight (which it has).
Most Democrats I know didn't vote here in Michigan. Changing the rules after the fact (it was well known and publicized that were broke the national party rules and our votes wouldn't count) is a bigger travesty by far than not letting some people (who always knew their votes wouldn't go to delegates) have a say in the primary. - Rohhob, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5http://digg.com/users/TheGrandMufti
Yea, we get it, Obama is toast. - BrotherMonk, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6The entire delegate process is a mess, in the same vein as the electoral college.
As a Floridian who voted in the primary I do NOT think the delegates should be counted. While I was upset that this whole fiasco happened in the first place (thanks Florida Democrats and the DNC!) at least 75% of the Democrat voters I am acquainted with in this state did not make it out for the primaries because they were aware that their vote was not going to count in the end. Now look where we are...
Florida just loves to be the center of a voting-related *****! - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Bottom line, FL and MI screwed themselves moving their primaries up before 2/5. There were loyal voters who went out there as rebels and voted anyway. There were loyal voters who followed the rules and didn't vote. They are US citizens and they count.
Can't we embrace these two states and seat them in Denver without allowing a disadvantage to either Clinton or Obama? Punish...? Come on, give me a break.
Penalize them in some way that may lessen their delegate status at the convention and at the same time dictate their first and subsequent votes there divided proportionally between Obama and Clinton, now. Later, no crossing over (just in case Clinton does make a run in Denver) unless Clinton or Obama release them. And that lesson will prevent other states from violating the presidential timing rules (from 1980) going forward.
Other scenario...change the friggin rules for 2012, and start now because it will take four years to get everyone on board and agreeable. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game no matter how much you hate them. McAuliffe was the former DNC head before Dean. He endorsed this stuff back then. Let's just follow the rules and get a nominee to go up against McSame. - gsadamb, on 05/27/2008, -3/+8Where was the mock outrage from Hillary's supporters when she said this: "It's clear this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot." ?
- scaaven2, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6I'd be pissed if I didn't show up to an election because I knew it wouldn't count, only to learn later that the results will count to benefit the candidate I wouldn't have voted for. That's ***** up, that's what that is.
- Tebixan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5I'm a Florida Obama supporter who did not vote in the primaries because I had been told that my vote would not count. I was in the middle of preparing to take exams at UCF, and didn't want to take time away from studying to cast a symbolic but meaningless vote.
If they decide to count Florida, I want a chance to vote. - netdance, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Dems all voted for the measure as well. Not a single one voted against. So that "Republicans made me do it" line is a little thin, don't you think?
- vision777, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Being from Michigan I didn't bother to vote since my candidate was not on the ballot and it wasn't going to count. We could vote undecided but that just meant you were not voting for any of the names on the ballot not necessarily Obama it could have been Edwards or any of the others that removed their name. I picked the kids up from the school where I vote but since it wasn't supposed to count I figured why bother. Those votes are not a legitimate picture of how the results would have turned out.
- Marmot, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4And yet with this primary, vote and still not be counted. It was common knowledge that the Democratic primary in Florida was not meaningful. Why bother heading to the polls or standing in line when your vote isnt going to have any effect?
The only reason to vote was for the homestead exemption, and that's only if you're a homeowner. If you're a registered Democrat and a renter, why would you bother? Seriously.
Here's an interesting thought -- is there a correlation between home ownership and candidate preference? E.g. are homeowners more or less likely to prefer Hilary or Obama, when compared to renters? - fani, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Yeah, thats typical Clinton. Bury it and fade it from people's memories by not talking about it and distracting us from that point by engaging us in another topic.
Also, one thing about Clinton supporters is that they like her because they flip-flop just like her. This gives me hope that they will flip-flop and support Obama eventually. - Codee, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4You've gotta' do your homework with the Clintons. They are some crafty little buggers.
- ouzome, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Completely wrong title for this post - or inaccurate spin on the story. Should read:
How the Democrat Party Will Disenfranchise Florida and Michigan
(And be the cause of the biggest voter disenfranchisement and greatest violation of the Voting Rights Act since 1965.)
Democrats, not Clintons (who I despise) - Democrats people. - ericthegreat, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5I am another registered Michigan voter who did not vote in the primaries because I knew my vote would not be counted. She agreed to the rules and we Michiganders have to suffer with the consequences of our DNC party and the state. We should not be counted without a re-vote which will not happen because the state is too broke. Suck it up Hillary
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3It wasn't comparing Florida or Michigan's primary vote with their general election vote & saying that's it. RTFA! It compared primary vote in 2008 vs general election vote in 2004 for the top 10 states. How is this not a fair comparison? The point that they are trying to make is that based on the huge turnout in other states, Hillary's claim that Florida & Michigan turnout was the biggest ever so it wasn't effected & therefore the votes should be counted is misleading. This seems in fact a much more effective method of determining whether the turnout was affected than simply comparing the 2004 primary turnout as you suggest. I'm sure you could find the 2004 primary figures, but assuming you did, how do you tell if 2008's turnout was affected. If 2008 was 10% higher, was it affected? What if it's 20%, 40%, 50%? You can't tell. You might say 50% higher in 2008 means the turnout wasn't affected. But then you might look at other states & see that their turnout was an average of 80% higher than 2004 primaries. See the problem?
- netdance, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Um, no, that's not correct. The Obama campaign just thought that they shouldn't pay for it.
it was the decision of the Florida gov't, Reps and Dems, to break the rules. The Florida gov't should pay for it, it's their screw up.
Don't twist facts, they might just double back and hurt you. - ADVIZR, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3...Wow, way to not look at the facts of the situation. People didn't "choose not to vote" because they "didn't want to vote." They didn't vote because they were told that their votes wouldn't count, and, in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Clinton wanting to break rules AND seat the delegates without Obama's voters having their voices count is the epitome of political evil and disenfranchisement.
- clippypog, on 05/27/2008, -3/+6Would counting these states disenfranchise those voters who stayed home by legitimizing the once unsanctioned election?
who is the Spin wizard who came up with that line? - x2wenty4x, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6This is a race for delegates, nothing else. Enough with the games.
- haxcorner, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3I agree with you mostly, but I don't agree with:
"If the voters had a problem, they didn't bother writing their legislators or newspapers to try and do anything about it."
I was not silent about my anger over this decision by my state's leadership and I'm I'm not the only one in this state of 5 million+ registered voters that freely vocalized their opinions on this matter. I don't know what went on in Florida, though.
However, the delegates should not be seated. We all knew what was said when it was time to vote - the DNC shouldn't change their minds after-the-fact because of pressure. If anybody has disenfranchised the voters of these two states - it's the elected officials who moved things up. - ileftfark, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4I see your point, but respectfully disagree. The real travesty is allowing Party leaders to change the landscape of their Party's rules and demographics at their whim, without regard to the people that it will ultimately affect. My argument seeks not to rectify this situation (you can't duct tape diarrhea), but to put procedures and genuine people at the forefront of Party behavior, and avoid the lose-lose situations the Democrats have been putting themselves into for years now.
- Noodleson, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4What's the point of this? The delegate gap is too big for Michigan and Florida to make a difference, so why even bring it up? If you want Obama to win, unite the party, don't run around telling everyone "I told you so". These Hillary attack ads only hurt Obama at this point.
- locojones, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Considering there is no constitutional right to vote in a primary election, it's hard to make an argument for disenfranchisement.
- GroundhogBoy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3If I go out tomorrow and start an election, completely unsupervised and unsponsored, in NYC's Union Square, should those votes count, too, because people took the time to vote?
- smacksaw, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4The states disenfranchised the voters. Hillary simply exacerbated the problem. And by pushing for her "solution" she is disenfranchising the voters who didn't select her.
Her logic is right in that these states need to be counted, but it's also illogical because you have to count the people who didn't vote for her as well. But how do you count the people who didn't vote? How do you count the people who didn't get campaigned to because of the states being uncounted? I am reminded of Mr Garrison's speech in South Park when the kids of the kindergarten were going to vote for Ike for class president and Rosie O'Donnell comes in and he yells at her. Even though it's a reference to 2000, it's amazing how prophetic South Park can be because it totally applies today. - MrBahaw, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3hmmmm........never thought of it like that
- runCMD, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5No one is required to vote in America. It's a right you have to exercise. No one is required to run for office in this country - again some action you have to perform just to make it on the ballot. For all of you who chose to vote, despite all the negativity and near abandonment by your own party - I say thank you. You are what free and fair elections are all about. Since you took the time to vote - I support your right to be counted.
- bluevillage, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Yes, but if Obama had campaigned there, he would have won by a higher margin and kept her delegate count down. Also, Edwards is no longer in the race, so if the primary were held now, he'd have an even higher percentage.
- jackalsclaw, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3great point
- sinrtb, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4I have come to the conclusion that Florida should not be allowed to vote in primaries or general elections ever again. They always screw it up!
- justintsmith, on 05/28/2008, -3/+5Trounced? Can you count? Even if florida and michigan counted, in the most optimistic scenario Hillary still loses the numbers game, unless a stunning majority of super delegates put on the brakes and reverse the growing trend towards Obama.
This type of person's thinking is why the primary is still going. - Tebixan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2How would you like it if I said Antidisestablishmentarianism
- tcheard, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2yea sure its comparing it to the general election but its comparing each states percentage turn out compared to the general election. Therefore its still comparing like with like. Its not comparing apples with oranges. Think about it!
- JayTee44, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4What's most important is that Hillary gets her way. The Clintons want back in the white-house, period. They may well find a way. It's all about them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is