About This Blog
As I'm sure you know by now....the rules committee, bending over backwards for Hillary Clinton, has settled the Florida and Michigan non-primary primaries. The proof of the more-than-favorable ruling for Clinton is the fact that Hillary was given 10 more Michigan delegates than Obama......when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in that state's primary.
After this Tuesday.....the Obama-McCain general election campaign will officially begin.
A bit of retrospection, I think, helps to place this entire disingenuous primary "argument" in it's proper context.
Josh Marshall points out the obvious....
What doesn't get mentioned, however, is this: it was widely reported and understood in both Florida and Michigan that the results of these primaries would not be counted. And based on that knowledge, large numbers of voters in both states simply didn't participate.
If the DNC were now to turn around and decide to make these contests count after all, these non-participating voters would be disenfranchised no less than the people who did turn out would be if the DNC sticks to the rules and doesn't seat any of the delegates. The simple fact is that large numbers of people, acting on accurate knowledge and in good faith, decided that there wasn't a real primary being held in their state on the day in question and on that basis decided not to participate. Link
It has been argued by conservatives, who I'm so sure are only being patriotically sensitive to the voting rights of Americans,...that Florida and Michigan Democratic primary voters have been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. The argument, if you're inclined to accept that it is an argument, is that not counting the votes of those who showed up for the two state's primaries, even though those voters knew ahead of time their votes would not count, is un-American, un-Constitutional, and basically unfair.
As Marshall points out, however, what about those who knew their votes would not count and so just stayed home that day? Do conservatives, who are fixated on voting fairness in Democratic primaries, concern themselves, at all, about the disenfranchising of those voters in those two states who were paying attention, accepted the fact that their state's primary would not count, and then, based on that reality.....didn't vote?
Any concern out there amongst "count every vote" conservatives for these specifically disenfranchised voters?
- 2013 (118)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)