Monday, April 14, 2008

Obama supporters should want Florida and Michigan to count

Obama supporters, do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

On February 7, 2008, I started a petition demanding that the Democratic National Committee recognize the results of the primaries that were held in Michigan and Florida. At the time, I thought that this was a cause that all Democrats could rally behind, especially after the debacle of 2000.

I was wrong.

It appears that support for the petition is dependent upon the candidate that one favors. Hillary Clinton supporters want the votes from these states to be counted. Barack Obama supporters do not.

It shouldn’t be that way.

It’s true that counting the votes of these ‘renegade’ primaries would benefit Hillary Clinton, but anyone who thinks that’s why we should recognize the will of the people in these states is being incredibly shortsighted. Recent history and a quick look at a map of the Electoral College should tell anyone that.

The last two elections were incredibly close. Democrats won Michigan in 2000 and 2004, but (debatably) lost Florida and Ohio each time. A win in either of these states would have stopped the disastrous presidency of George W Bush.

If voters in Michigan and Florida are disenfranchised this primary season for a rules violation that was beyond their control, these two states will assuredly turn red this November.

Michigan and Florida Democrats will not forget how their party cast them aside and unfairly stripped them of all influence this year, especially when the rules that the DNC is currently hiding behind only called for a 50% reduction in delegates.

They also will not forget how Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were permitted to break those same rules without penalty.

The DNC’s draconian punishment, a pathetic attempt to make an example of Michigan and Florida, has caused the voters of these states to be portrayed as rule breakers, as children who stole an Oreo from the cookie jar of democracy and must be given a time-out.

This treatment is both demeaning and insulting, and it is alienating Democratic voters in these states. Evidence of this has already been seen in Florida. According to a poll conducted by the Miami Herald in March, 25 percent of Florida Democrats will be less likely to support the party in the general election if Florida is shut out of the nomination process. This leaves a huge opening for the GOP in the fall.

The Republicans handled their primary scheduling dilemma correctly. Besides Florida and Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wyoming also held their contests in violation of Republican National Committee rules. But rather than curry favor with some states at the expense of others, the RNC followed their own rules and stripped them of half of their delegates.

The states were punished equally, and all of the primaries were considered relevant in determining who the Republican candidate for president would be. This will be a powerful argument that the GOP can use against the Democratic candidate in the general election when competing for votes in Florida and Michigan. It’s an argument that John McCain has already begun to deploy:



So I’ll ask the question of Obama supporters again: do you feel lucky? Should Obama get the party’s nomination with a 48-state strategy, do you think that he’ll be able to put Florida and Michigan in the win column, even as he blocked revotes those states? Do you think that the 2.3 million voters who participated in the rogue January primaries will just fall in line behind a candidate who doesn’t think that they should be counted, especially a state that had been wronged in the past? Well, do you?

I don’t.

If Florida and Michigan voters do not have a meaningful role to play in the selection of a presidential nominee now, while it still matters, don’t expect them to support the party in November.

Think about that the next time you feel compelled to wag your finger at them while shouting the DNC mantra “rules are rules”.

UPDATE 4/15: SusanUnPC of No Quarter makes the same argument about the Electoral College by citing a new Rasmussen poll.

4 comments:

  1. If Obama does win the nomination, I do believe these states will hurt him in the election. I really don't understand it though. Do the delegates here get seated at the end or never? It's confusing. If you care to explain, my e-mail is lesley_suzanne@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure what you're getting at. If the Dems followed the GOP example and cut FL and MI's delegate counts by half, and assuming there were some kind of proper election to be held in MI and FL, even assuming that Hillary won 70-30, Obama would still be leading by about 100 delegates at this point.

    Why would all Democrats rally behind your petition when you post this kind of garbage about Obama on Youtube?

    You link to all kinds of sick, wacko anti-Obama propaganda that comes from conservative blogs and the RNC. Excuse me if I don't believe you're in this for the good of the Democratic party.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an Obama supporter, I'd like to sign your petition, but Michigan is highly problematic. I think 100% of FL delegates ought to be seated on the basis of the illegitimate primary---even if it auto-disenfranchised those POTENTIAL voters who heeded the DNC, stayed away, and might have otherwise participated, at least Obama was on the ballot. We seat 100% and then WE can tell the Repubs THEY'RE the ones disenfranchising 50% of their voters (they stripped half their delegates as punishment). Even though seating 100% sets a dangerous precedent for future state violations of DNC rules, I agree with you that the potential negative impact on the Dem nominee this fall---should we NOT seat, is greater. There were also complications (mitigating circumstances)for the FL Dem reps who voted in a Repub legislature for the illegal primary. (The move-up date was attached to a broader election reform bill.)

    But Michigan Dem leaders have no such legitimate excuse---they are solely responsible for thiz brazen defiance of DNC dictates in changing their primary date. Worse yet, Obama waz "voluntarily" off the ballot. ummmm...Clinton had claimed the intention to remove her name as well, and has been quoted as saying the primary wouldn't matter anyway.

    But regardless, none of this is the fault of Michigan voters. However, seating Clinton delegates on the basis of her 55% vote is problematic when potential Obama delegates are "hidden" more or less in the 40% UNCOMMITTED that presumably split for the most part between Obama and Edwards. I advocate either the compromise proposal outlined by some Michigan Dems (splitting the difference b/t the "primary" results and 50/50 allocation), or giving Clinton her full 55% allocation---with a special rule attached for the 40% "uncommitted" delegates that they be forbidden from committing to any candidate that was ON THE BALLOT, and must commit to one that was NOT ON THE BALLOT, as would clearly represent the intention of uncommitted voters as much as possible. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For more on Obama's failures to keep his word take a look at Bonnie Erbe's "Obama's Fundraising Hypocrisy"

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/7/21/barack-obamas-fundraising-hypocrisy--a-lobbyist-by-any-other-name.html

    ReplyDelete