Streams

Recount Redux?

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The Florida Democratic party is pushing ahead with a plan for redoing its primary, likely conducting the bulk of the voting through mail-in ballots. Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for Time Magazine, breaks down the plan and the controversy it's stirring.

Guests:

Mark Halperin

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [35]

ab

More immflamatory ignorant comments from hjs

Racist pastor? Why is he racist? Because he is an advocate for the concerns of people of color? Funny how to racists like you, fighting racism becomes "racism". Nice try, it doesn't fly. You apprently have a disease called FOX news on the brain.

A quick entry from Wikipedia: "For its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright"

So I wonder exactly what it is you are talking about? I wonder why certain white people feel so threatened by an African-American publicly speaking up for their community?

Mar. 13 2008 04:31 PM
ab

Why no discussion about Ferraro's bigoted comments, Brian?

Funny how you conveniently ignored that issue....

Mar. 13 2008 03:56 PM
James from New York

On opening the segment, our host stated the fundamental obvious unfairness of the nomination process: "caucuses have favored Obama". It started in Iowa, which created the momentum that made New Hampshire & Feb. 5th closer than they would have otherwise been, which rolled on thru S. Carolina & the rest of the Feb. (caucus-littered) calendar. The two major primaries where Clinton was favored by a much broader & more democratic electorate - Michigan & Florida - were forbidden to hold early events because it was forseen that she would do well in them. Dean, Kennedy, Kerry & the folks who control the DNC had the Obama caucus-driven scenario very much in mind when the calendar was crafted. If it were not so - there would be no resistence whatsoever to holding re-votes in BOTH Michigan & Florida to allow them their fair & proportionate voice in the process. If Michigan & Florida are not allowed to re-vote now (by June 10th) it is only becuase it is understood that Clinton is STILL more popular in those states than Obama is. If that were not so Obama's supporters would have no problem with a re-vote now, (particularly as they claim that he has the momentum now). Unless of course, they're not so sure about that after all. I support Clinton. I believe she would still win both states, but I don't KNOW that. But I am willing to let the people of those states decide the issue. Why would any DEMOCRAT not also be so willing?

Mar. 13 2008 01:18 PM
MCH from Brooklyn

I remember hearing about this way before the December holidays and thinking that it would lead nowhere good. I don't see any how to solve this in a way that is fair to both sides. Many of the people commenting here seem to be happy to lump the states as monolithic entities. These are individual voters. I'm sure New Yorkers would be angry not to be counted because of some stupid action up in Albany. But there is also the problem of people who may not have voted because they knew it would not count. A mail-in is risky at best. I don't see a solution that a lot of people will not think is unfair.

This is really turning me off the Democratic Party. I also think Mark Halperin is not being straight with listeners. After seeing him on cable TV many times I've concluded that he is an Obama supporter although I doubt he would cop to it.

Also, regarding the tone of many of these comments above - who sounds more hateful now? If this is the level we have stooped to, then we cannot claim moral superiority to the Republicans.

Mar. 13 2008 12:48 PM
hjs from 11211

he also doesn't talk about obama's racist pastor Jeremiah Wright, another BL cover up, just whose side is he on!! nader??

Mar. 13 2008 12:29 PM
Mark from Washington Heights

It was a very bad idea to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan in the first place, but since it was decided like that, and both Clinton and Obama agreed to it, they must stick by this and not seat those delegates.

Mar. 13 2008 12:18 PM
capt.chris from manhattan

re:#17

Of course he doesn't mention Ferraro. This show is as nauseatingly bias as they come and consequently have ceased to listen to it with any kind of regularity.

Mar. 13 2008 12:16 PM
Marcus from New York City

i aslo the disenfranchisement argument is silly. there was no primary. it was a beauty contest. how can you disenfranchise a vote for delegates when no vote for delegates took place?

Mar. 13 2008 12:14 PM
jawbone from Parsippany, NJ

Cont'd.

At the time of the primary date moves, there did seem to be pretty much a wink-and-a-nod that “something” would be “worked out.” That must have depended on one candidate clearly winning the nomination without those votes.

Oh, my. Good strategic thinking, Dr. Dean!

Mar. 13 2008 12:12 PM
jawbone from Parsippany, NJ

In FL, it was the Repub gov and legislature which wanted to move the date forward. The FL Dem Party had no control. Plus, there was an important state constitutional change appearing on the ballot and the Dems needed to have high turnout for that measure (which passed, alas).

Bottom line: Republicans moved the date; Dems could not afford a separate primary.

In MI, the MI Dem officials and MI Dem Party chose to move the primary forward. Ironically, they might have received more attention if they’d remained in their original date. However, here it was Dems in charge and they refused to allow write-ins or votes for those who left their names on the ballot: Clinton, Dodd, and Kucinic–may have been one or two more–Biden? (because he asked to have it removed too late to have it removed).

FL Dems, as mentioned, have not had their votes counted completely in 2000 and now this? Not good news for the Dems running in FL or for the Dem presidential candidate.

No Dem candidate is to win without FL or MI, most likely requiring both.

Way to go, DNC.

And, of course, the news readers and most pundits just say both are being penalized for moving their dates forward, seldom mentioning the different circumstances.

Mar. 13 2008 12:10 PM
Tania from New York, New York

I agree Chris O. For the first time in my life, I will consider not voting Democratic if Hillary wins this nomination at all costs.

Re: Florida. No one talked about or seemed to care about these voters being disenfranchised until Hillary started losing and trying to change the rules. Where was the public outcry before South Carolina?

Mar. 13 2008 12:08 PM
Marcus from New York City

Anyone else uncomfortable with the idea that Hillary Clinton sees no problem whatsoever seating delegates from a contest in which her opponent was not even on the ballot?

Even if she had an argument with Florida, which is dubious, why does she insist on including Michigan in the equation. I have yet to see any new agency press her on the logic of her position in this instance.

We are faced with a major presidential candidate with no qualms against securing an advantage in a Soviet-style ballot. It is simply stunning.

Mar. 13 2008 12:06 PM
hjs from 11211

i don't understand the problem, they were told the first vote was too early. the 2nd vote is not too early, the 2nd vote follows the rules, the 2nd vote should be counted. both sides can campaign.

Mar. 13 2008 12:04 PM
chris o from New York City

Ferraro's comments have turned me extremely against Hillary, even though that may be unfair, maybe not. I've tried to be nice. Obviously the Republicans will be doing this to him and worse, so I suppose it is good to see if he can survive this racial polarization in the primary. But if he can not, then I can not accept Hillary as President. (I can't accept McCain either.)

Mar. 13 2008 12:03 PM
Michael from Brooklyn (not Jersey City)

The voters of Florida and Michigan did not choose their election date, and disenfranchising them for the misdeeds of their party leaders and legislators is not fair or just. They have to redo it. If no-one else will pay for this then the candidates should. This seems like it would be a good PR move for the first candidate to advocate this solution, even if it is not accepted, and neither is short of funds.

Leaving aside the fairness of any currently proposed solution, the tactical stupidity of risking turning off the Democratic voters of two major states by discarding their primary votes is difficult to comprehend.

Mar. 13 2008 12:03 PM
Neal from NYC

Is there any way that we can prevent Florida's votes from counting in November as well? Haven't the folks in FLA proven that they are simply incapable of conducting a fair and reliable election?
(tongue firmly in cheek!)

Mar. 13 2008 12:02 PM
NJTom from Bayonne, NJ

Rules are rules. Sorry Florida, sorry Michigan. If they do not like it, get their rep's out of office!

Mar. 13 2008 12:00 PM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

If Michigan and Florida are not counted it will probably lead to a Democratic Party defeat in the general election.

Mar. 13 2008 12:00 PM
Jack from Manhattan

Why not a caucus? Because Hillary might lose?
We can't have that!! By the way Brian, no discussion of Ferraro's racist comments? Who are you supporting?

Mar. 13 2008 11:58 AM
capt.chris from manhattan

Ditto #1

All candidates agreed to play by the rules and agreed that any votes would not count, INCLUDING HILLARY. She continues to be nasty and underhanded and should be shut down.

Mar. 13 2008 11:57 AM
inquisigal from Brooklyn

Agreed. A rule was broken, and there were clearly- defined penalties prior to FL and MI primaries. It sends a terrible message to everyone who does play by the rules that whining and defying should get instant results. FL and MI would be better served working with legislators to get the primary season schedule changed in the future; then they'd get a lot of supporters on board.

Mar. 13 2008 11:57 AM
Louis Steinberg from new jersey

With a mail vote, someone buying votes can be sure the bought vote was cast as bought.

Mar. 13 2008 11:57 AM
Jill from Brooklyn

HJS - yes, but WHY do they get a second chance? What's the justification?

Mar. 13 2008 11:56 AM
JHW from New York

The Republican Party had a good idea with their censure of Michigan and Florida, I think the Democrats should go ahead and copy it. Let Florida and Michigan votes count, but cut in half the number of delegates they get. Wildly unfair to Senator Obama, who wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, but despite the press trying to make it look like a tight race to sell papers and fill airtime, he has such a large lead that it is likely to be irrelevant.

Mar. 13 2008 11:56 AM
Sean Pisano from Brooklyn

What is this football. There is no replay in voting. It is what it is. These states screwed up so let them eat mud.

Mar. 13 2008 11:55 AM
Lee

How is it that Fl and MI are allowed to break the rules as they see fit ? If this is the case, then who needs the DNC at all ? Who needs an election for that matter ?

Mar. 13 2008 11:55 AM
hjs from 11211

jill the dnc negated the first vote because they vote to early. a 2nd vote within the rules should be counted.

Mar. 13 2008 11:54 AM
BORED

Why does it need to be fixed. We have rules for a reason. You break rules you are punished.

Mar. 13 2008 11:54 AM
Tania from New York, New York

Would someone please explain why everyone does not see how obviously unfair seating these delegates without a revote would be! Hillary didn't want these delegates seated until she started losing. I like to think I'm an open minded and educated person, but I just don't see what valid justification there is.

Mar. 13 2008 11:54 AM
Robert from NYC

If the people of FLA and MICH were told to NOT jump off they roof, would they have jumped anyway!? Huh?

Mar. 13 2008 11:54 AM
CH from Staten Island

It's truly amazing that after nearly 8 years of the Bush administration either changing, ignoring, or redefining rules and laws—one of the basic things that make up the Democrats platform—that ONE of our candidates seems to be doing just that. Obama respected and followed those rules, Clinton is following the Bush precedents.

Mar. 13 2008 11:53 AM
Jill from Brooklyn

This is ridiculous. If there's a recount, then what point was made by the DNC to Florida when they negated their votes the first time around? Exactly - that they don't mean what they say and the system doesn't work!

Ask any parent: you must set the consequences and FOLLOW THROUGH otherwise the rules will never be learned.

If the DNC decided that Florida votes don't count then they DO NOT COUNT.

I am very sorry they will miss the prom but they broke the rules and they are grounded, and Prom Queen Clinton can go cry in the bathroom....

Mar. 13 2008 11:51 AM
hjs from 11211

what about just having a phone poll (kidding)

of course they should have a revote FL and Michigan.

Mar. 13 2008 11:51 AM
Zak Rouse from Brooklyn, NY

Mr. Cappelltti. THANK YOU. It is the prerogative of the DNC to punish states that refuse to play by the rules. If Florida and Michigan get to seat delegates, what's to say that the 2012 primaries won't start in 2011? 2010?

Moreover the Clinton campaign's insistence on these states is transparent. Of course she won the two states where no one was supposed to campaign; she has the name recognition. According to Mrs. Clinton none of the states Mr. Obama have won matter. According to Mrs. Clinton, the two states that matter most are the two states that unequivocally DON'T matter. Or at least, weren't supposed to...

Mar. 13 2008 11:48 AM
John Cappelletti from manhattan

If states like Florida are allowed to pick their own primary dates, other states may decide to defy the DNC in the future and hold elections earlier than assigned. Florida received a penalty for its action and its votes should not be counted. Also, the candidates agreed to ignore these states and they should abide by their word. Delegates from these rogue states could be divided equally among candidates and allowed to attend the convention. Without a serious no-second-chances penalty, the DNC will have no control over the states or unity.

Mar. 13 2008 11:35 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.