Comments on: Florida Dems May Get A Recount

Politico: Plan To Redo Primary Using Mail-In Ballots Moves Forward

[taddles-2009]

"Already , in TExas, both sides claim evidence of vote tampering with one town having at least 3 voters whose ballots wrote in Clintons name and erased Obama''''s but when contacted, the voters claim to have voted for Obama.

Posted by b-easy63 at 03:32 PM : Mar 11, 2008"


...3 votes....that''s it?!? that''s not "voter fraud" like the Repubs like to cry about, that''s some d1ck with an eraser changing a handful of ballots. Kinda sad if you think about it, some ignorant dolt sneaking around with an eraser, trying to influence the vote...pity the state went for Obama anyway, kinda makes his little felony just that much more pathetic.

[b-easy63]

To the author of the blog: Florida may not get a recount, they would be getting a new primary or caucus. A recount is simply the re-tallying of votes already cast. In this instance since it is a total do over, it will not be a recount--the first primary will be thrown out and this one would take its place.

Beware though, this is a dangerous idea. Either camp could try to frame the other, by faking some votes in the other Candidates name and claiming the supporters of that candidate did it. We all know which campaign would be devious enough to try to discredit the other one that way, don''t we? Can anyone say NAFTA-gate?

[b-easy63]

There had to be some ulterior motive for going against DNC rules.Posted by tibu987 at 04:10 PM : Mar 11, 2008


One of the stupid things Obama campaigners said, was that Since the delegates could not be seated, Florida and Michigan votes were of no consequence. That is disrespectful. No American wants to hear or believe that they do not matter. Of course the Clinton camp is just as stupid when they discount votes from smaller states or states with a lower amount of Delegates. Again, saying they do not matter is disrespectful. Then there is the continual making fun of Obama supporters--that is childish and dangerous. You may not think you need many of them now--but you will in the general election. How many will vote for Hilary after she called them disillusioned dreamers, cult followers and her campaign staff has dismissed them as latte drinking Obamabots. Everyone (including Obama''s team ) act like they can win alone and certain areas don''t matter--but in the end, each side is going to need the groups they are mistreating and castigating. Hilary''s team appears to be the worst culprits for this type of idiocy, but both have been guilty as have we who blog.

[taddles-2009]

Wow, I wish I could just ignore the rules, tell the DNC to f**k off, cry about it afterwards when my fingers got burnt and then get a do-over, must be nice to live in Florida.

[tibu987]

There had to be some ulterior motive for going against DNC rules.
I think we should all stay on top of this issue and report on any under-handed deals that may arise.
Not for a moment do I believe this was simply done for one-upsmanship. Am I cynical, you bet I am.
Frankly, I am not sure that the Clintons, as is customary with them, aren''t trying to pull something off.
I just hope that Floridians and Michiganites can see through the facade that is Hillary, and vote for Obama.

[b-easy63]

The mess in Florida was created by the GOP! The republican-controlled state legislature passed the law moving up the date and the republican govenor Crist, signed it! An amendment exempting the democratic party was put forward and voted down by republicans.
Posted by stn_sage at 10:29 AM : Mar 11, 2008

Wrong. the original date which the Dem picked in compliance to the new rules was 1/29/08. But then party leaders wanted to make it even earlier and that is really where they ran afoul of the DNC rules. Florida and MI were trying to beat out Iowa and NH and in doing so, refused to honor the dates they and the DNC had already agreed to. The Republicans moving up the date was not the real issue--that is deflection. What got each state in trouble with the DNC was failing to honor the dates they had picked out that already complied with their states new deadlines.

[b-easy63]

I think that is a very bad idea subject to voter fraud on a massive scale. Picture this--rooms somewhere of Clinton or Obama supporters churning out dozens of fake votes replete with authentic SS numbers. Already , in TExas, both sides claim evidence of vote tampering with one town having at least 3 voters whose ballots wrote in Clintons name and erased Obama''s but when contacted, the voters claim to have voted for Obama. This could get ugly, would always be questioned and the money would still be gone. Best to have actual voting booths with people coming in and voting one time--in person.

Imagine if even a few votes are duplicated but each time the voter voted differently, then imagine upon investigation, one side or the other is accused of faking votes.

Why don''t we hold primaries like general elections and all vote for the candidates in ONE day?

[bookwerm314]

Oh, and I am all for a REVOTE in FL and MI.. yes, blame the state leadership for huge stupidity.. and I do WANT the states to count.. but you CANNOT count the initial primaries!! Why? Most folks I know did NOT VOTE because they were told IN ADVANCE that their votes would NOT count!!!

So, what kind of nutso WOULD vote, fully knowing the vote was meaningless? NOT folks we want to listen to SOLELY.. (yes they get a voice, but not the ONLY voice).

Let both of them campaign and educate the residents, so they can vote on what is TRUE and NOT on what they THINK they know based on past articles etc.

[bookwerm314]

Who are these nutso''s saying OBAMA should drop out of the race? He is the one ahead, one that CONVERTS Repubs and Indies to BE DEMS, has MORE money AND MORE folks GIVING money (not a few BIG donors.. lots of little ones), and a BETTER MESSAGE! And will be the better prez.

Our country is not even supposed to NEED "experience".. supposed to be CITIZENS running the place!!! Not some special breed.. and the fact folks THINK you need ''DC'' years to MAKE it is one of the BIG things WRONG with DC.

How can Hillary be ready on "day one" when, after 31 primaries, she says she is "just getting warmed up"??? Dudes, don''t go by what you think you know.. it is wrong.. She claims %u201Cexperience%u201D.. well, Hillary has LESS experience than Obama.. yes, a few more years in DC Senate, but LESS TOTAL!! I do NOT count Mrs Clinton time..

would we even KNOW Hill if she had not been married to Bill? On her own merits? NOPE! And as for that "call at 3AM".. well, she has HAD that call. many times.. she supported the Iraq invasion and did not even READ the intel, which said there was NOT any reason to go in.. other congress critters did read it, and came to the same conclusion that Obama did.. not a good idea to go into Iraq. She is a rubber stamper for BUSH for gods sake! NOT an effective leader.. just says she is.. and you gullible dopes believe what she says and never look past that.. dig into it.. her past is both thin and poor.

[hoopakai]

Check out this memo regarding Hillary''''s "experience" sent out by former Director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department, Greg Craig--

http://thepage.time.com/obama
-foreign-policy-memo/

(Obama supporters distribute it as many as possible, about time someone released something pertaining to her "experience")

[mark2130-2009]

When Hillary comments that she is the candidate of experience, does this mean that under her presidency we can expect the same kind of labor laws and healthcare that her experience granted Walmart employees when she sat on their board of directors?

[pensacola88]

What some people don''t know is that just last year, Florida and Virginia finally complied with re-enstatement of voting rights for ex-felons, but through a process which requires time to process.

80,000 ex-felons ( majority were profiled as democrats) would have been enought to change Florida Blue or Democrat.

To dilute the voting power of Democrats, the primary are moved up giving few ex-felons adequate time to get their voting rights restored.

It has been a monumental fear for Florida republicans, who held out to the last year for their compliance.

Governor Charlie Crist has his eyes on the Republican VP position, and knows that watching the state turn Democrat during his watch, would reduce his chances for a bid at the white house.

Democrat Bill Neslon, warned Crist about he delegate penalty threat by the DNC, but Crist and his Republican cronies, just bushed Nelson''s warnings aside and proceeded to make more notorious history for this state, by depriving Democrats of their civil rights. It is fashionable, in their eyes.

[rowdytexan2]

But, as I stated before, the primary date was voted on by the entire legislature and signed by the governor. In Florida''''s case, that means a Republican majority legislature and governor. How are Democrats to punish them? And in Michigan, the only Democratic candidate whose name was on the ballot was Hillary Clinton, who didn''''t show support for the DNC rules by removing her name from the primary ballot. Should she be rewarded at the Michigan Democratic voters expense?

If the state Democratic parties are going to foot the bill, it could be argued that they are paying (literally) a large penalty for their flaunting of DNC rules. To penalize the voters would be grossly unfair, and could skew the nomination in favor of a candidate who thumbed her nose at the rules.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by flreason at 01:59 PM : Mar 11, 2008

Ms. Clinton didn''t break any rules. She didn''t campaign in either Michigan or Florida. The rule was that they couldn''t campaign, not that they had to take their name off the ballot.

And if you apply the rule to her, you have to apply it to all the other democrats that didn''t take their names off the ballot. It''s not their fault Mr. Obama took his name off the ballot.

[flreason]

Oops! You flout rules, but flaunt your stuff!

[flreason]

richardbellx:

I understand, and am sympathetic to your position regarding the Florida and Michigan Democratic leadership(Michigan being much more culpable, since they have a Democratic governor and legislature). There will certainly be an opportunity to punish those of them that are up for re-election in the fall.

But, as I stated before, the primary date was voted on by the entire legislature and signed by the governor. In Florida''s case, that means a Republican majority legislature and governor. How are Democrats to punish them? And in Michigan, the only Democratic candidate whose name was on the ballot was Hillary Clinton, who didn''t show support for the DNC rules by removing her name from the primary ballot. Should she be rewarded at the Michigan Democratic voters expense?

If the state Democratic parties are going to foot the bill, it could be argued that they are paying (literally) a large penalty for their flaunting of DNC rules. To penalize the voters would be grossly unfair, and could skew the nomination in favor of a candidate who thumbed her nose at the rules.

[lorinkundert]

You can''t have a redo without all candidates being given the option of campaigning, Hillary was the only one to defy the party and campaign anyway. Kind of makes you wonder if she didn''t plan on this as some kind of insurance.

[flreason]

p.s. Voters who cast ballots as Republicans in the primary wouldn''t be allowed to vote in the Democratic re-primary. That should elminate some of the bump Hillary has gotten from Neocons who have voted for her to keep Obama, who they see as a bigger threat in Novermber, out of the number one position. It would/will be interesting to see if HRC''s lead in Florida polls would hold up in that situation.

PUNISH THE LEADERS OF THE FL AND MI DEMOCRATIC PARTIES

The leaders of the Democratic Parties of FL and MI are the people who should be punished. They are the leaders who decided to break the "rule of law" governing the delegate selection process. They knew when they chose to act that they were breaking the rules, and that the consequences could be severe. The DNC did what any political party that wants to remain in existence has to do, and enforced its rules.

The voters of FL and MI should be calling for the heads of their foolish party leaders.

As to a do-over, the rules governing this year''s elections are the results of decades of debate within the party. To allow a do-over at this point will radically alter the process which the rules had provided for. How would FL and MI have voted if they had stayed within the process? We will never know. But any vote by the residents of those states now is tainted by the changes on the ground that have taken place since the time when they might have voted under the rules.

I also don''t believe that not having FL or MI seated at the convention is going to make much difference one way or another to the vast majority of voters. First of all, there is less and less evidence that voters make decisions this far in advance of an election and stick to them, under any circumstances.

And is there really anyone out there who thinks many voters will sit out the election if there are no FL or MI delegates?

[flreason]

The primary date in Florida was not only a Democratic Party decision. The Republicans who voted for it, and the Republican governor who signed it, knew full well that it would disenfranchise the Democratic voters...and that was peachy keen with them. Granted, some of the Democratic legislators played chicken with the DNC and lost, but the fact that Republican voters were not penalized and Democratic voters were made it a slam dunk vote for the Repubs.

The Democratic voters should be allowed a chance to have their voices heard. Considering low voter turnout in previous elections, these idiot legislators don''t represent the majority of state voters anyway. (Spoken as a Florida resident.)

[ljb6599]

The only reason Clinton wants Florida and Michigan is because of the super delegates she will be able to get. I am convinced the Hillary will take this all the way to the Convention. She and her husband will somehow argue that she is the better candidate even if she is behind.The superdelegates will then pick her over Obama and thus will be the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party.As it is now both candidates are going to suffer in the national election because of Clintons'' kitchen sink strategy. There did seem any way that the Democrats could lose this year but now the chances are very good that they will.