Streams

The Role of the GOP in Michigan and Florida

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Wayne Barrett, senior editor at the Village Voice, tells us how he sees the GOP determining the fate of the delegates in Michigan and Florida at the Democratic National Convention.

Guests:

Wayne Barrett

Comments [14]

Veronica from Florida resident

FYI the Florida primary ballot included a vote to amend the Florida Consitiution regarding property taxes. That vote generated a record turnout. I can only guess there would have been little if any increase in total turnout based solely on a Democratic primary. There was a full slate on the ballot. My personal opinion is that this was the purest of elections. Primary votes were cast based on personal information gathering not manipulative ads.

Apr. 08 2008 12:37 AM
James from New York

Florida & Michigan combined have a population of 28,300,000 which is approximately 9.4% of America's population of aprrox. 303,000,000. About 1,725,000 people voted in the Democratic primary in Florida and approximately 594,000 people voted in the Democratic primary in Michigan. So approximately 2,320,00 people voted in those two states combined. That is MORE than twice as many people that voted in all 14 of the states which held caucuses combined. The combined total for Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii & Wyoming was about 1,020,000. More people voted in the Democratic primary in Florida ALONE - 1,725,000 - than voted in all 14 states that held caucuses. The 2,320,000 people who voted in the Democratic primaries in Florida & Michigan will not only get fewer delegates to represent them in the selection of the Democratic party's Presidential nominee than the 1,020,000 people who voted in the 14 caucus states - they will get NONE!!! No election which excludes 9.4% of America can or will be considered legitimate by MANY Democrats. If the January primaries do not count then another way MUST be found to let Florida & Michigan VOTE.

Apr. 02 2008 12:01 PM
MCH from Brooklyn

Hi Poulo: I'm not getting that he is saying that this was some sort of vast conspiracy by Obama and the Republicans, only that his campaign has resisted any remedy that makes voters' preferences relevant. It seems to me that a re-vote of some kind is in Obama's interest, because I agree with james, with or without he still wins so why not give him win that no one can question or make out to be illegitimate? This will give him a much bigger boost with the superdelegates and with voters in November.

Apr. 02 2008 12:00 PM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

What the Kool Aide drinking Obama supporter do not understand is that by denying Michigan and Florida voters their due process Obama will loose the general election to John McCain. There will enough angry democrats and doubtful independets to give McCain a victory.

Apr. 02 2008 11:57 AM
Andrew from NYC

Look, it was--and has always been--the goal of the Clinton campaign to seat delegates based on the January votes. Any and all negotiations with the Obama campaign over re-votes took place under the false context that it was the Clinton campaign making the sacrifice for re-votes. Further, while the Obama campaign (for better or worse) didn't work super hard to get revotes accomplished, from a logistical standpoint, such re-votes were never all that plausible (due to very genuine questions about voting by mail in FL and how to integrate the previous votes in the process). From whatever perspective you take, it's difficult to imagine any re-vote being pulled off without an eventual lawsuit attached.

I never considered unseating FL and MI to be a wise decision, but it was a decision all campaigns agreed to. Something tells me the Clinton campaign would be pushing against this if the rolls were reversed. If the NV caucuses have taught us anything, it's that they're more than willing to support lawsuits brought with the intention of disenfranchizing would-be participants in the nominating process.

Apr. 02 2008 11:57 AM
World's Toughest Milkman from the_C_train

Zsa Zsa Huffington...meh.

Apr. 02 2008 11:55 AM
james from greenpoint

if you give her all of michigan & florida, she still doesn't win.

Apr. 02 2008 11:43 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Dean's suggestion is the only alternative to not seating the delegates at all.

Apr. 02 2008 11:43 AM
james from greenpoint

re florida democrats' "opposition" to moving up their primary date (with video):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/1/153956/6000/791/488388

Apr. 02 2008 11:40 AM
james from greenpoint

this guy is clearly not impartial -- a clinton supporter. the thesis underlying his piece from a couple of weeks ago, "Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy," was basically that republicans want obama to be the nominee because he is untested and easily defeated, with the wright flap as the main evidence of his unelectability. the piece currently being discussed is just a means of muddying the waters, which is the only hope clinton has of keeping this race going (against the wishes of most everyone (save die hard clinton dead enders)).

Apr. 02 2008 11:38 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Quoted from the article: "In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee."

THAT is half an analysis. He doesn't want to seat delegates in states where he wsa not given the opportunity campaign OR EVEN BE ON THE BALLOT... states where thousands of people stayed home because it was deemed pointless to come out and vote, and that means he's just practicing "conventional politics".

And he says "Ring was such a champion of the early primary that when Obama, like all the other candidates, supported the sanctions and agreed not to campaign in the state, Ring withdrew his endorsement."

Sure, he mentions all the other candidates, but he clearly the implication that Obama's decision was the deciding factor in this decision.. not that the wind in the Democratic party at large were blowing against these decisions.

It's EXTREMELY misleading and clearly intended to make Hillary look like the victim of some kind of Machiavellian scheme.

Apr. 02 2008 11:37 AM
Chris O from New York

I like Wayne Barrett's commentary and style. I guess he appears a lot on the show b/c of his artilces but he should almost be a regular on the show.

Apr. 02 2008 11:36 AM
MCH from Brooklyn

Hi Poulo: Are you an expert in this particular area? Please enlighten the rest of us on the missing 50%

Apr. 02 2008 11:31 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Wow... this article is pretty ridiculous. He certainly knows how to spin. If I didn't have to stop and think about what he was saying, I might be inclined to believe that Obama and his supporters orchestrated the early elections knowing full-well that it was going to come down to these two particular states eventhough it has never ever been that close. Bravo.

Mr. Barrett you did 100% of the research and 50% of the reporting. When you cherry-pick the facts you've collected and do half an analysis on topics you present, one can clearly see that Obama is in league with the GOP.

Apr. 02 2008 11:27 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.