WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Earlier this week, we did a very rough estimate of the Florida delegates, should they ever be seated, based solely on the state-wide vote, coming up with Clinton 108, Obama 77. Now, the Green Papers has done a better, although not final, estimate, coming up with Clinton 102, Obama 71, and Edwards 12, with Edwards taking 6 delegates from each candidate. The final delegate counts won't be available until Florida issues the final vote by Congressional District, but it's likely not to differ more than a delegate or two from the above estimate. The MI/FL tracker has been updated with these new numbers.
And, of course, it won't matter unless the Florida delegates are seated anyway.
Update: More accurate numbers are in: Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13.
del.icio.us
22 comments:
As a Florida registered Democrat, I just want to say that not counting the Florida delegates in the primary would be completely unacceptable. If Obama wins the nomination fair and square with all the Florida primary votes counted, I will probably vote for him. However, if Obama receives the Democratic nomination without the Florida delegates counted, under no circumstances will I vote for him. Instead, I will abstain, vote for an independent, or even seriously consider voting Republican. I am sure many other Florida democrats plan the same action, especially after what happened with Al Gore in 2000!
While I can understand your feelings as a resident of that state. BUT, how can the inclusion of FL and MI be done fairly at this point? Clinton was the ONLY major candidate on the ballot in Michigan and only beat "uncommitted" by 15 points and no one but Clinton campaigned in Florida. This was all based on the national parties ruling about how to punish the state parties for breaking the party's rules. Clinton was the only one to break their promise about campaigning in Florida and guess what she won...a surprise? Just as you would be upset by Florida's exclusion, MANY of us nationally will be livid (oh and I imagine law suits would be filed) if they are included. You should be mad at your state party who knew the rules and chose to break them!
Elizabeth you wrong, Hillary did not campaign in Florida she held a post primary rally, after the polls closed.
It was Obama who broke dnc agreement by running adds on CNN in Florida.
I have been a registered Democrat in Florida for many years. It is unacceptable that the Florida delegates will not be seated.
Either way, if the delegates are not seated, I will consider that I have been disenfranchised and will not vote in the General Election. Why should I? Count me now and count me later, or don't count me at all.
Jackie
I suspect the Democratic party will abide by its convention rules and sanction the two states by taking away 50% of their delegates. This is what the Republicans have done and is in accordance with the Regulations of The Rules & Bylaws Committee adopted in 2006.
Todd you are correct! And Elizabeth-- it's people like you who keep putting up UNFAIR (to use your own vernacular) information which translates 'negatively' against Hillary Clinton. She DID NOT campaign in Florida. As Todd said, she only went to Florida AFTER the votes were counted. Furthermore, what she did was 'gracious'-- she thanked those who did support her! Nothing at all wrong with that. So before you, and others, start to 'bash' Hillary-- get your facts straight! And Todd is also right--Obama did run ads in Florida which is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!
One thing i can't stand is misinformation by the Obamians. You don't have to lie to make a point.
Well the response to me has been interesting. Unlike what some if you think I am not so ignorant. I took what was said and looked into who did what when in Florida. The facts are neither candidate attended any campaign events in the state and they both had national ads seen there. So I am not so one sided that when facts are presented I don't acknowledge them. That does not change my opinion on the delegate situation. Just wanted to show you that you all had me. Pegged wrong.
Elizabeth,
You are wrong once again Obama was the only one who ran ads in Florida. Second to create the illusion that nobody campaigned in Florida when people in Florida have cable and saw the deabates as well as many of the speeches by all the candidates. The only thing that people were not able to see was him in person.
I think it would be appropriate to take away all "super" delegates from MI and FL as these party big wigs contributed to this IMHO.
i am from FL and i keep reading a bunch of almost accurate info here about our primaries.
for those who care to get things straght, hillary did not campaign here, she had a fundraiser. fundraisers were permitted in the pledge.
obama did not run ads here, he ran a national ad campaign through msnbc and cnn. the networks would not run the ads
excluding FL. if that is a violation, then putting anything on the internet is a violation because we in FL can see it.
now to what i think, FL democrats have been robbed and the national party is screwing themselves. with such a close primary the FL delegates might be the amount that tips from one candidate to another.
the presidential election is not a lock, and florida is a nice state to get if your trying to win. how do you think we FL democrats are going to feel when we get to the voting booth? obama said our votes don't count and hillary only wanted to count us when she knew she would win. being that hillary won FL, if obama wins then FL then the rest of the country has run over FL's choice and the FL democrats have been disenfranchised by the party of "count every vote." if hillary wins because she got the FL delegates seated under the current results, then it's the same old backroom politics and the obama voters will feel that the will of the people has been silenced. her opportunism reeks when when the questions are asked. where was she on this issue when the national party was voting on this? why did she sign the pledge?
besides if they count the FL delegates now it will be unfair. considering one of hillary's big strengths down here has been a result of hillary's name recognition and that obama's numbers invariably go up when he campaigns in a state. realistically it is unlikely that obama could win FL but he could certainly close the gap which would affect the delegate percentages.
the republicans will have a field day with this.
the only solution i see is to have a new primary in FL (and MI too) and that the national party should pay for it. while some may think that this is not fair, all things considered it is practical. the FL party won't pay for it. as far as they are concerned the FL primary is over. the FL party has already showed how far they are willing to go when the held the primary in defiance of the national party. FL has nothing more to lose in this gambit. the national party on the other hand has to think about entering into the presidential election with a party divided against mccaine, who has already shown even when he is down, he is never out.
and now just so you know where i am coming from. i have been a registered democrat for over 20 years and vote in EVERY election, no matter how trivial it may seem.
i do not have cable so i could not see obama's comercial (except through the internet).
i resent the fundraising loophole in the pledge to not campaign in FL. it sends me the message of "we don't care what's important to you, we only care about your money."
as a FL democrat i feel the national party has disenfranchised me in the primary and this issue is so important to me that the only candidates that i could consider was kucinich and gravel as they were the only ones who refused to sign the pledge.
this issue is so important to me that regardless of who wins the nomination they will have to make some sort of stride towards rectifying this injustice to the democratic voters of FL who were the victims of a power struggle between the state and national parties.
the republicans were smart enough to decide to count 1/2 the delegates and so avoid the issue.
i cannot vot for mccaine because of his stance on the war. so, if in the end i feel neither party is representing me, then maybe i will look for representation in bloomberg or nader.
and before i start getting flamed by a bunch of party loyalists, let me say it's a matter of principle. i will not play the pawn in the party's game and patiently wait till i'm told it's time for me to move.
if the national party wants my vote, then they will have to show me. otherwise how do the represent me and the other people of FL?
if you still don't understand, then maybe you better think about what you stand for, because it's certainly not democracy.
COUNT EVERY VOTE 2008!
Thank you people of Florida. if only you could somehow convey your position to the rest of America. It seems that supporters in other states are so adamant about discounting Florida and Michigan that they fail to think of the big picture. They cannot see that the voters are being punished for the actions of the hierachy and therefore may respond in kind come November.You are a state that can win the election for the Democrats but they seem more excited about banging on about primary wins by a new exciting player in Die hard republican states that will not change. So I wish you well in your fight for you democratic rights.
alonso I agree with almost everything you said. I think Hillary was very considerate towards Florida pre primary and post primary and was respectful of its worth. I believe this is not solely due to her aspirations for the nomination.(which can not b denied) She is a seasoned presidential campaigner and she knows full well what Florida means in a general election not just a primary. That is why I was stunned post primary on Obamas harsh wording with it "doesn't count" etc it was so disenfranchising for the people who went out that day because they wanted a voice. He offered them no acknowledment or gratitude for their efforts . Although one cannot deny Hillary saw an opportunity sometimes its the little things count when everyone else seems against you. Hence I ended up thinking if he wins the nomination or some delegates are seated this could end up biting him on the tush. I don't know how to resolve this to everyones satisfaction but alientaing a whole state is surely not the answer for anyone.
To those of you who think it was nice of Hillary to thank the Florida voters for their support...
that sounds funny being said about a candidate who didn't acknowledge her supporters in the Potomac Primaries this past Tuesday. In her stump speech (which sounds shockingly like Obama's these days) that evening she didn't mention the Virginia, Maryland, or DC primaries and certainly didn't thank those few voters who supported her.
Michigan definitely can't be counted as is, Obama wasn't a choice so how many voters didn't bother to go and vote uncommitted? Michigan would have to be a revote.
As a distant observer, fundraising in Florida certainly looked like funny business from here. And certainly if Obama would have performed better with campaigning. Florida's delegates could be counted - but only if they don't change the outcome of the legitimate voters choice. If they would change the outcome, there would need to be a revote.
And before you resist - think about that - IF Florida COULD change the outcome, then the Democratic candidate would be up to the voters in Florida - it would empower the Florida voters - AND it would provide a fair fight.
PS - I know Hillary supporters will reject this because she wouldn't be able to beat Obama in such a scenario (so have at me).
If Florida and Michigan delegates don't count, then, the magic number of 2025 to win the nomination should be reduced by 303, thus making the finish line 1723.
2,025 already assumes FL and MI don't count. If they do count, the number to win is 2,207.
Alonso - Very, very well put. Every last word. It's great to hear what a well informed voter from the state effected has to say, and with such clarity. This is most definitely a complicated situation, and I think it reflects a lack of foresight on the part of the Democratic party. It seems as though they penalized Florida and Michigan without thinking of the consequences that would arise from a very close race like the one we currently have. The current primary system automatically assumes an early winner, which basically tells late voting states that they don't count. Under such a system it was natural for Florida to move their primary to an earlier date. I agree with your point that the financial burden of a re-do election should be on the national party, as they are the ones who need it politically. I don't think it's necessarily fair, since Florida broke the rules, but it is just the reality of the situation.
To those who view Hillary's actions post-Florida as "graciousness," don't you realize that this is a political campaign? Do you think that Hillary would have done the same thing if she had lost? She flew to Florida a few days before the primary, which is not technically campaigning, but got her some free positive media at a critical moment, and then delivered a "victory speech" when she obtained no delegates. It was merely a move to draw attention away from Obama's big South Carolina win and to counteract the momentum he received from it (and also to move quickly past the focus on Bill Clinton's South Carolina campaigning). One of Hillary's main campaign strategies has been to shift expectations and spin results to her advantage. She has done it brilliantly, but I think that voters should try to be well enough informed and to think critically enough to look past the spin. Think about this - just before the South Carolina primary, right when she realized she was fighting a losing battle there, she left the state to campaign elsewhere, essentially displaying a national message that it no longer really mattered. The race turned to race, shifting the focus to the large percentage of African American voters in SC, providing a scenario that if she won it would be an upset, but if she lost it would be expected. She left Bill there to do his work, which had the effect of telling South Carolinans that they still sort of mattered and also capitalizing on his popularity in the black community, but at the same time she distanced herself from him and his remarks to avoid any backlash that might come her way. Then she lost badly, and moved quickly to Florida to erase the impact of SC. It's politics, and like I said, she is brilliant at it, but don't think that she acted in Florida out of graciousness or respect for Floridians. That's exactly what her campaign wanted you to think. Do you really think that she's always viewed Texas as a "good representation of the constituency," that she doesn't really expect a win in Wisconsin, or that she really wants to debate Obama because they owe it to Wisconsiners? No, Texas is her firewall, she thinks she can win in Wisconsin and wants to spin it as an upset to shift the momentum, and she knows that debates are her strong point and is looking for any way to stop the Obama train.
I'd discount all the posturing and examine the rules. The political parties aren't written into the constitution and are what we made them. So, if we are disenfranchised by the club rules, then we need to change them. Apparently, the FL and MI chapters didn't like it, and went their own ways (personally, I don't like it either, but there is a right way to to change the rules... called voting!). FL and MI decided to ignore the rules (stomping on the agreements everyone else somehow managed to follow), and did their own thing and now are mad when the prearranged consequences have been imposed. And now I'm reading that the national party should pay for a re-election because it isn't the voters faults that the local party decided to flaunt the rules... just who elected them? That's right, it was those "disenfranchised" voters. So, from the bottom, we have a vote that put in some folks that decided to ignore the rules by some other folks that were also elected, but with whom they apparently disagreed. Please remember that the state I'm in is a "Super Tuesday" state, so I'm not too happy with the thought that others think that I care what the early voters have for an opinion... it generally doesn't matter unless the candidate I like leaves the race before Super Tuesday. But, I can't honestly support the idea that we can just flaunt the rules and do whatever we want. Nor do I buy into the notion that the voters in the effected states were merely innocent victims since they elected the leaders who chose to cause the problems.
billp - i can understand why you think it unfair that the national party pay for a "do over" but i am talking about practicality and the interests of the democratic party as a whole.
1 - the florida party isn't going to pay for it because they have nothing left to lose and nothing more to gain.
2 - do you think hillary's supporters are going to follow obama when the florida and michigan voters delegate totals would have meant the nomination for hillary? they will say obama won the counted vote but not the popular vote.
3 - do you think obama's supporters will join hillary if they count florida and michigan under the current vote? they will say hillary used backroom politics to take the nomination from the person chosen by breaking the rules.
4 - think strategy. do you really think that florida and michigan democrats are going to throw there support behind a candidate and party that refused to count them. as for myself, i am resolved to vote for nader unless there is a "do over." florida and michigan are good states to have if you are trying to win a presidential election and to pay for the "do over" would go over real good at winning over the support of many democrats of these states at a time when even long time democrats like myself have lost faith in their party. democrats will not be able to stand against mccaine with a house divided.
5 - something you may not realize. in florida the republicans are in control of the state government. the primary date would have changed with or without the cooperation of the democrats. this was a republican idea and much to my chagrin the florida democratic party went along. are you willing to allow the republicans the opportunity force the democrats into a divisive position while they dance away scot-free because they had the foresight to come up with a solution that penalizes but does not ostracize?
6 - "who elected them?" not me. like i said we are a republican state. i am a democrat and voted democratic but the rest of the state which is democrats and republicans voted them into office. but this only refers to elected officials. our state party like all the others is controlled by a bunch of committee members that are not elected by the people but are selected. just the same old back room politics that everyone says they're against.
7 - this is a problem created by the politicians not the people. i don't want to be a part of a party that wants to play "holier than thou" posturing as they point their fingers as to who is to blame, i want to to be part of a party that looks at the problem and comes up with solutions.
pay for it or don't pay for it, the choice comes with consequences. as you say florida and michigan made their choices and received their punishment according to the rules. now the dnc must make their decision, but then no crying when i, as a florida democrat, make my choice for nader so that my voice will be heard. i am getting tired of a 2 party system that has monopolized our government, polarizes the people, marginalizes the real progressive movement while both parties continue to lay the blame on each other. (yet anouther reason to consider nader.)
count every vote 2008!
Since no one had the opportunity to vote for Obama in Michigan, how can those delegates count?
But, since people had both Clinton and Obama on the Florida ticket, can't they split the loss? They could compromise by seating half the Florida delegates, halving the delegates they each would have received.
If Clinton: 105 and Obama: 67 are correct totals, then give Clinton 53 and Obama 34. It is common for a penalty (in school) to half, taking a test late often yields a 50% max score. This is how I handle personal disputes, instead of one person taking 100% of a loss, it is less painful, often, for both people to take a 50% loss, then at least both side perceive a sense of fairness in the deal.
I'm a republic, btw, and will not be voting for either democratic candidate. It was curiosity about the issue, and it is certainly a hand-wringing issue, that brought me to look it up, the search term I used in Google was "number of Florida delegates."
What a mess!
As a Florida democrat if our votes are not counted I will not be voting in the general election... This primary is way to important to once again count us out... It was not our decision as voters and the dnc should pay for a re-do. Otherwise the party will lose many votes at the general election... We have been disenfranchised here in Florida one too many times.. I understand the only logical choice is a re-do so lets stop the nonsense just accept the fact the dnc will have to pay for a re-do. Hmmm its not rocket science---- spend the money and get our votes counted or have another 4 years of republicans in office!
as a disclaimer, i am a new yorker, obama supporter, and young/new voter.
alonso, you make very valid points, and at this point, i believe the democrats are going to follow suit with the republicans (seat all delegates, yet allow only half to vote). personally, i am against this. i believe that rules are rules, and it is unfair of the people of MI and FL to cry disenfranchisement to the nation when it was their local governments that took the actions that excluded their votes in the first place. i also believe that ultimately, the war mixed with the failing economy will push democrats ahead with independent voters because of mccain's hawkish support from the war's conception and his obvious lack of economic savvy. in conclusion, i do not believe that the DNC needs those few voters who will reject the national outcome, and the rules ought to stand for this year and be modified for future elections.
as for possible modifications, it always boggled my mind why individual states held individual primaries and, historically, on distinct dates. why not have four election days, spaced out evenly, including states of varying importance. for example, for the democrats:
April 25th: Alaska (18 delegates), West Virginia(39 delegates), Connecticut (60 delegates), Texas (288 delegates), and other states with varied delegates hold primaries.
May 25th: Delaware (23), New Mexico (38), Louisiana (66), New York (281), and other states hold primaries
i think you all understand where i'm going with this; four election days, each a month apart, with either 14 states or 1100 delegates up for grabs in each election. the states would not be chosen such that there's a northeastern primary, southern primary, and so on; rather, the states would represent various geographical regions. i'm sure career politicians can set up further rules to ensure four even and fair elections, giving the candidates and voters time to respond to the evolving political landscape and current events without giving certain states more influence then the number of delegates they can provide. after all, the reason FL and MI decided to change their election date was in order to have more influence on the outcome. moreover, because the election would not be decided after the first two rounds of voting, party members in states that would vote later in the season would not experience the current feelings of disenfranchisement.
i know some of you will say that that last bit about rule changing does not help us deal with the issue at hand, but i was raised to believe that it is purposeless to point out obvious flaws in a system unless you can suggest a solution.
so my solution is to follow the rules that everyone originally agreed to play by, disqualify the states that violated said rules, and hope for a drastic restructuring of the party's rules within the next four years.
Post a Comment