"...disenfranchising the voters in Florida..." - President Bill Clinton

Florida (Democratic) voters sans 2000, just like Ohio (Democratic) voters in 2004 should find this old pat.

You are quite right,   Mr. Crowley.

RE: Ohio:

Nutty conspiracy theories.

RE: Bill Clinton

I'm sorry, but frankly, EVERY SINGLE WORD that comes out of his mouth should be questioned for both it's (a) honesty and (b) political calculation. And then we should assume the worst. Every time.

We've been burnt too many times by this guy. Hillary would have been smarter to have him continue his medium profile charity work during the campaign. This would have allowed him to continue to elevate his post-presidential persona and gravitas (and therefore, Hillary's). Imagine if Bill had continued his charity work. Most Democrats would say, "Wow, that guy's going to be a great man to have in the White House."

Even if Crowley's thesis is correct, which I doubt, it is still reprehensible and irresponsible for the Democratic party to permit the nomination process to go forward without including the votes of these two states. If these states were included in the totals, I would agree that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the majority. Without these states, Hillary certainly has a strong case to make to those delegates. Why not pay for elections in Michigan and Florida with equal contributions from both campaigns? Lack of money is a phony issue.

Crowley's intro was a perfect example of "condemning with faint praise".

r-ennis - How do you find it fair to include Michigan's vote totals when Obama and Edwards (following party rules) pulled their names from the ballot?

"Sadly I suspect huge numbers of Florida and Michigan voters may never have a clue that their primary votes didn't count to begin with, never mind making their choice in November on that basis."

Say it loud, I'm elitist and I'm proud!  

It's not going to matter to *most* FL/MI voters, but these are such close states that if it matters to a small number, it could mean the election.  The GOP will find some way to spin this ("they say they are big tent, but look how harshly they'll punish any who stray").  

More than just a tad of elitism here, Michael--people bother to vote in a primary but don't notice that their votes aren't being counted? Very unlikely. Especially after 2000.

According to CNN's reporting today, a lot of Florida voters are pissed--even those who didn't vote in the primary.

PC:

Guess who made them pissed?

Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton was about anyone besides herself, she would let this issue die. the clinton campaign always knew that if hte yplayed the "disinfranchisement card" they'd hurt the dems chances in November in Florida.

The Clintons are driving this. The election was not real. It was a beauty contest. Now...if Hillary cared about her party, she'd let it be and move on. But she doesn't.

For all practical November purposes, I think McCain wins Florida no matter if Obama is the Dem or if HRC manages to "kitchen sink" the nomination away from him somehow. Conversely, either Democrat will probably beat McCain in Michigan.

Uh, I highly doubt that Florida and Michigan voters are blissfully unaware of the controversy surrounding their primary votes. Whether they care enough to automatically turn their backs on Democrats in November in case their votes remain excluded is an open-ended question. But they do know. And it is not (just) through Clinton campaign references to the controversy that they are consistently reminded of the issue, virginiacentrist, since Dem state leaders in FL/MI have been the ones most vocal in the battle so far.

I personally think that neither state deserves to have its delegates seated. They were warned of the consequences before moving up their primaries and they proceeded to break the rules anyway. Revotes would clearly constitute the most auspicious solution to the entire situation but I  highly doubt that such a measure will come to pass. However, I do think Bill has a point when he argues that popular votes from these states should be added to the overall tally. No one ever said that the popular vote itself would not be counted, only that delegates would not be seated at the national convention. Why not, then, at least do that bare minimum to avoid complete voter disenfranchisement? It certainly would not cost any money.

jkolic,

I was with you on everything up until you said that we should count the popular vote margin from Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot.  You could make a case for counting Florida  in the popular vote (not a good case, but a case nonetheless), but counting Michigan is indefensible unless there is miraculously a revote.

I disagree with Mike that FL and MI will forget about or be unaware of this incident.  The only fair thing to do was and is a re-vote.  If politicians in both states stand in the way of the revote, then they -- and not Obama or Clinton -- are to blame for any "disenfranchisement."

I put that word in quotes because we're nominating candidates, not electing officeholders.  Party bosses can hand-pick or use a randomization device or tarot cards if they think that will pick a winner.  The process doesn't have to be democratic.  It has to yield a strong candidate.  It just so happens that democracy is the name of the party and some version of popular election is believed to work.

Ack.

No one is going to be disenfranchised, unless the final delegate spread is less than 41 delegates (the net pickup for Hillary in FL/MI). And it won't be. So they'll seat the delegates. And no one will be disenfranchised.

The only variable here is whether the Clintons continue to rattle the "disenfranchisement" saber. They can accept the results of the beauty contest as unreal, or they can continue to hurt our chances in November. It's their choice.

Alan SP,

Point duly noted. I do see that counting votes from Michigan would make less sense and be more unjust than including those from Florida, since Obama was not on the ballot in the former state. I still hold, however, that Florida ballots at least should be added to the overall tally. In the end, Florida is strategically more important by the virtue of being the largest swing state - Michigan will go blue anyway

Virginiacentrist - I do not see the point of seating the FL/MI delegate after it has been determined that the lead now held by Obama cannot be overcome either way. If they are excluded (and I do think that they ought to be, unless there is a revote) let them remain so - Dem party officials in both states have amply deserved such an outcome. (I stand to be corrected, however, since I do see it possible that such a futile move might eventually be decided upon.) Ultimately, only the revote can prevent voter disenfrachisement for those two states - absent that now highly unlikely measure, all other solutions stand bound to inflict injustice on someone, regardless of what is said and done.