Election Do-Over... are they serious?

WickedLou9 · 03-06-2008, 05:05 PM

So Florida and Michigan are looking like they want a do over on thier primaries. They realize that they made massive mistakes moving thier primaries contary to party rules and no want to re-do the entire election. This seems wrong to me. Won't previous results influence the vote this 2nd time around? Doesn't this somehow taint the results of the election? I really don't think this is good idea. I think those states should have to wallow in the filth that they made for themselves. There are no do-overs in politics.

What if we could do over the election of 2000? LIke we could have it once we could see the results and then vote again. I wonder if all those people who voted for Ralph Nader would change thier votes the 2nd time around... Is that fair to allow this? I don't think so.

David Octavius · 03-06-2008, 05:44 PM

I think a do-over is fine, no sense to punish the voters for their stupid ass politicians. But it needs to be a new primary/caucus and not count the "results" from when they voted last month.

JaJae · 03-06-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I think a do-over is fine, no sense to punish the voters for their stupid ass politicians. But it needs to be a new primary/caucus and not count the "results" from when they voted last month.

I agree both candidates need ample time to campaign there to be fair. A June primary is probably best and it needs to be decided ASAP. Even with MI and FL, Hillary can't get the delegates to win. But she needs the victories in key states like FL, CA, NY, NJ, etc to protest stealing the nomination from Obama. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

RMNIXON · 03-06-2008, 06:28 PM

I guess it is a fair thing to do? All the rules make me dizzy!

But I still think it will be a huge circus, and watch for more fighting between the hard core supporters and campaign staff.

kombayn · 03-06-2008, 07:34 PM

Right now I think the democrats are screwed. Clinton is hell-bent at any chance to get into office. If it does go to a Brokered Convention, all bets are off. That'll be a crazy DNC to watch.

Smull · 03-06-2008, 08:06 PM

Personally I think that the politicians in Florida and Michigan fucked up big time by being arrogant and insisting to hold their primaries earlier. But I can also see being really pissed off if your a voter in that state who simply wants his voice heard. But those states should be punished in some way (hey why not take away their SUPER delegates?)

Even if these states have a re-vote (counting the results as are is blatantly unfair) I'm pretty sure that Obama will still likely take the nomination, mathematically Clinton needs to kill him in nearly every state before she surpasses him in delegates see:
Alter says: Hillary Loses Obama Wins Nomination | Source for all the Dirt in the 2008 Presidential Election Campaign

I do think that this says something about our overall primary system tho. Wouldn't it be much more fair and much simpler if the order of the sates was decided either randomly or in some kind of rotating order? With the amount of States voting split up fairly evenly over 3-4 months or so? This seems like the fairest and simplest way to decide things, rather than relying on the peoples of Iowa and NH to set some kind of gold standard every four years.

motivez · 03-06-2008, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

Personally I think that the politicians in Florida and Michigan fucked up big time by being arrogant and insisting to hold their primaries earlier.

Really? I completely disagree with this

Florida and Michigan are two very important states in the general election, far more important than Iowa or NH, and yet.. they consistently have to wait until after two relatively unimportant states play a HUGE role in determining the nominee.. a nominee two more important states in the general should have more say in deciding, IMO.

I think they made the right decision by moving their primary forward, for the good of the party and the good of the state. The sooner we move away from Iowa and New Hampshire's stranglehold on the nomination process for President, the better.

JaJae · 03-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? I completely disagree with this

Florida and Michigan are two very important states in the general election, far more important than Iowa or NH, and yet.. they consistently have to wait until after two relatively unimportant states play a HUGE role in determining the nominee.. a nominee two more important states in the general should have more say in deciding, IMO.

I think they made the right decision by moving their primary forward, for the good of the party and the good of the state. The sooner we move away from Iowa and New Hampshire's stranglehold on the nomination process for President, the better.

This may be true, but it needs to be a decision by the party or it fubars the entire system as we're seeing in this election.

northhunter · 03-06-2008, 11:14 PM

As far as Michigan our Governor said if taxpayers have to pay for it then it isn't happening. She said the cost, somewhere around 20 million would not be fair for the taxpayers to be expected to pay. She did say if there was sugar daddy out there.................... well you get the idea. I agree the taxpayers payed for one primary already. The party officals were told, move up your election it will cost you.

JaJae · 03-06-2008, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by northhunter

As far as Michigan our Governor said if taxpayers have to pay for it then it isn't happening. She said the cost, somewhere around 20 million would not be fair for the taxpayers to be expected to pay. She did say if there was sugar daddy out there.................... well you get the idea. I agree the taxpayers payed for one primary already. The party officals were told, move up your election it will cost you.

Florida has said the same. The DNC offered Florida $800k to hold a caucus which they scoffed at. The DNC thus far hasn't been willing to pay for it. And to be honest, if this primary is going to June that only gives the DNC a few months to campaign against McCain. Spending upwards of $50million on two new primaries is going to hurt them in the national election. As of right now, neither state is willing to cover the costs of a re-vote. We'll see what happens I guess.

WickedLou9 · 03-07-2008, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? I completely disagree with this

Florida and Michigan are two very important states in the general election, far more important than Iowa or NH, and yet.. they consistently have to wait until after two relatively unimportant states play a HUGE role in determining the nominee.. a nominee two more important states in the general should have more say in deciding, IMO.

I think they made the right decision by moving their primary forward, for the good of the party and the good of the state. The sooner we move away from Iowa and New Hampshire's stranglehold on the nomination process for President, the better.

The DNC chose those several unimportant states because combined they are a very diverse group and he results give you a good idea what the results from the rest of the country will look like.

SoFlaJDM · 03-07-2008, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? I completely disagree with this

Florida and Michigan are two very important states in the general election, far more important than Iowa or NH, and yet.. they consistently have to wait until after two relatively unimportant states play a HUGE role in determining the nominee.. a nominee two more important states in the general should have more say in deciding, IMO.

I think they made the right decision by moving their primary forward, for the good of the party and the good of the state. The sooner we move away from Iowa and New Hampshire's stranglehold on the nomination process for President, the better.

but did you know in the (republican) florida congress, a straight vote on moving up the primaries didn't pass, but when it was attached to a ballot paper trail bill that was voted for unanimously...

if you look at the votes, the dems weren't exactly in favor of moving up the primaries

Stylerod · 03-07-2008, 12:37 PM

I just can't see a revote.

motivez · 03-07-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The DNC chose those several unimportant states because combined they are a very diverse group and he results give you a good idea what the results from the rest of the country will look like.

I don't agree with that. I think they set the tone for the rest of the country because of their early status, not because they're diverse and represent the country.

(Iowa, NH)

WickedLou9 · 03-07-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't agree with that. I think they set the tone for the rest of the country because of their early status, not because they're diverse and represent the country.

(Iowa, NH)

That's not what Howard Dean said on NPR yesterday. They chose Iowa, NH and South Carolina because of the diversity they they represent.

motivez · 03-07-2008, 01:15 PM

Well, he's full of shit and I still disagree with him.

South Carolina was a welcome addition, but it's not like they just recently chose Iowa and NH to play early roles in the primary process, that's something which has been around for a long time..

Florida, Michigan, Ohio, other very very important states should have the early roles, because they represent the country's diversity far better and play a much more important role with the electoral map.

JaJae · 03-07-2008, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's not what Howard Dean said on NPR yesterday. They chose Iowa, NH and South Carolina because of the diversity they they represent.

That's correct. That's my understanding as well. There have been a lot of arguments against it. I don't know which one is right, but all the experts in the DNC tend to think it's more important to figure out the demographics of the vote over individual states.

Michigan I see no logical argument for pushing up their primary. Florida has been important recently, but only because they suck at counting and have a lot of votes that come in late in the game and usually end up having to recount 85 times. Otherwise, Florida wouldn't be as important. Being a "swing" state doesn't necessarily mean that the person the Democrats in the state think is the best choice is going to have the best chance in a national election.

The idea is to start off the primaries with as many informed voters as possible and with a clear demographic. For example, Iowa is white, South Carolina is black, etc. Also Iowa and New Hampshire are very much into politics and both (especially New Hampshire) give the politicians a chance to talk in small groups and get a good feel for the candidates before making a vote.

There's a method to the madness...

David Octavius · 03-07-2008, 04:03 PM

The only reason Iowa and NH are first is simply smaller states bitching (again), that they don't have enough power and that bigger states have more of a say in Presidential elections.

They already have a lot of power in the Senate (too much IMO) now they want to decide the Presidential nominee too. Sorry but that is not right, 100,000 people should not decide the fate of an entire nation.

RMNIXON · 03-07-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I just can't see a revote.

Hillary says NO!

motivez · 03-07-2008, 05:14 PM

What do you guys think about the argument for/against a caucus?

Obama has been doing far better in states where there is a Caucus instead of a primary, so if they're going to revote.. should it be the same type of process as it was originally, or is moving to a caucus fair?