Michigan and Florida

Maybe not the most timely, but last week, Senator Clinton had an interview with Texas Monthly where she said she planned to push for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, despite what had been previously decided by the Democratic Party.

Senator Clinton on why she feels she needs to press this issue: "It’s in large  measure because both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that."

I'm really curious whether Clinton supporters think this is a good plan?  A bad plan?  And whether they will continue to support Clinton if she chooses to pursue this plan?

Comments

[honglien123]

Neither Clinton nor Obama objected when the party decided to strip the MI and OH delegates of their seats way back last year. I think this is what she has to do as someone who got many votes in those states and is currently behind. If Barak Obama were behind, he would be doing the same thing so on the one hand it's political maneuvering. On the other hand, the democratic party can't afford to essentially disenfranchise so many voters especially when the election looks like it will be pretty close in November. If it didn't cost so darn much to hold a primary, I'd say those states should vote again, but since it does cost quite a bit, the party should split the delegates in MI and work on a compromise on FL.

[PunditMom]

I don't know why she shouldn't. When the whole thing was unfolding, I thought it was the stupidest thing in the world for the DNC to call for that and even stupider (sorry grammarians!) for candidates to agree not to be on the ballot.

If things were going Hillary's way right now, people would be saying that keeping her name on the Michigan and Florida ballots had been a brilliant move. There was no downside and only upside for her to keep her name on the ballots to allow the Democrats on those states an option other than a write-in candidate.

I think it's too late to try to re-configure the voting or the process now -- there will be even more outrage if they try to split those delegates or do something else.

[jaelithe]

I am an Obama supporter, but I can say with certainty that if their positions were reversed, I would still not want those primaries to count. Especially the Michigan primary.

Voters KNEW those primaries had been disqualified; because of that, many people who might have voted in a "real" primary probably didn't bother to show up. And in Michigan, Clinton's name was the only name on the ballot. There were NO write-ins allowed. You could only vote Clinton or "Uncommitted."

I don't think it's fair to disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan, but, if the results are accepted as-is, the DNC WILL be disenfranchising those voters who did not vote because they did not think the contests would count, and those voters whose choice was not even available on their state's ballot. It's a tricky situation and honestly, I really think the only way to resolve it is to hold new primaries. I know that no one wants to pay for that, but I would personally be willing to donate to a fund to hold new primaries in those states (maybe the DNC could look in to raising funds?).