Democrats' "punishment" for Florida and Michigan may end up being a Gift.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
March 6, 2008 4:05pm CST
It looks like the states of Florida and Michigan might be granted a "do over" for their Democrat primaries.
Back in the 2000 election the Democrats tried to change the rules after the race started, but were blocked after they tried to make the courts see it their way.
Maybe this year they'll be able to prove once and for all that rules mean nothing to the DNC... but then again, maybe not. We'll see.
I know if I was Hillary I'd be fighting this tooth and nail. She is in a better position to either appeal to the DNC simply allow the votes cast on the primary days to be allowed... or, if the DNC won't, do it the Democrat way and sue the party.
Either way, we'll see if the DNC has any backbone, or if they are willing to prove what many of us already know about them.
2 people like this
4 responses
@bdugas (3578)
• United States
7 Mar 08
i may be wrong but I think once a vote has been cast it over with, what do we do keep voting till one gets ahead of the other again and again, of people voted for people that wasn't still in the race that is their problem, Hillary will do anything it takes to get infirst place. From what I see of this race, neither one of them is going to come out with enough to win the nomination. And when Nader gets in it is only going to split the vote more and that is what he is after, same as before when he run, those who voted for him, hurt the other 2 canidates. i truly can not find it in my heart to vote for Hillary, I believe she would bring the biggest harn to our country. She is a gold digger and a person who would do anything for power. She came to our area where they are sending the jobs here over seas and told how she was going to change that but yet has always voted or back the sending of jobs to mexico or over seas. Sorry didn't mean to get into a political debate, I would love to have a woman in office one time to see if she could straighten out all our problems but just not this one.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Mar 08
Nader won't be running against "the other two" candidates, he'll be running against the ones who get the democrat, republican, libertarian, green... etc nominations.
Nader never ran for president to help someone else win. Niether candidate has a "right" to anyone's vote, no matter what party they belong to.
@bdugas (3578)
• United States
8 Mar 08
Parden me I repeat what I hear on the television news, FOX NEWS infact and Ralph Nader said he was going to run for office and they said when he RAN the last time, all he did was take votes away from the other 2, which made it easier for the other side to win, now if they liars then so be, I have found anything you say on here you always got one who wants to say you a liar. I don't really care who wins as long as it isn't her so she can take that dog of a husband back into the Whitehouse so he can do some more women while she does her lesbian thing. Why should they have to have the people revote, didn't they get the results they wanted, so we will try again.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Mar 08
I think Hillary would rather just hang all the Chads. ;~D
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
7 Mar 08
Once again the Democrats show that they do not care about the taxpayers. Primaries are paid by that states taxpayers. Of course we are talking about the Democrats, they have never show any respect to the taxpayer class of America, and why should they start showing any rescept to the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan.
Now onto your discussion about changing laws to fit their standards, and/or opinions. Look at how they, the Democrats, view the Constitution. They will bend it and shape it untill it fits their needs. When Conservative say that government programs like Medicade is unconstitutional, the Democrats just say that the constitution is a living breathing document. The right for a woman to abort the life of her unborn baby is not in the Constitution but that did not stop the Democrats. They just decided to appoint judges that would "find it" in the Constitution.
@dlucks101 (79)
• United States
7 Mar 08
YOu a certainly correct. As some of the other posters have said, who is going to pay for it? Primaries cost a lot of money to run. The dems would rather have the states spend the money on another election instead of helping homeowners who are losing their houses and businesses who are struggling.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Mar 08
First, you say, "Back in the 2000 election the Democrats tried to change the rules after the race started, but were blocked after they tried to make the courts see it their way." I seem to need my memory refreshed here; what rule did the Democrats try to change in 2000?
As for this year's mess in both Michigan and Florida, I think a revote is the only thing that could possible make sense and be fair. We can go back and forth over his fault it was but here's whose fault is was NOT - the voters. I don't care about the national or state party organizations, the candidates, the Florida legislators or Governor who threatened to veto any attempt to amend the date change, I do care about the ordinary voters who went to vote and those who didn't vote because they didn't think it would count. What else could possibly be fair to them?
Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
6 Mar 08
Back in 2000, Al Gore didn't like the outcome of the Florida election, so he sued... he didn't like the outcome of the suit, so he appealled it. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled that the laws can't be changed after the election started.
That is what would happen here if they allowed the votes to be counted in Florida and Michigan. The candidates agreed on the rules before hand, so they really shouldn't be whining now.
As for the voters, they also knew that votes for a Democrat candidate wouldn't count before the election. If they voted Democrat anyway, that was their choice. Basically though, it was the same as anyone else who voted for someone not running (like when a lot of people voted for Romney or Thompson as a "none of the above" or "protest" vote against the ones who were running).
It's would only be a punishment for the voters if they were told their vote wouldn't count after the fact.
