RECENT POSTS
- Life and Debt
- Obama To Cabinet: “We Cannot Sit Back and Be Satisfied” With Some Progress Amid High Unemployment Rate
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/23/2009
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
- Obama Decision on Copenhagen Summit Attendance “In the Coming Days”
- Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
- President Obama Calls 9th War Council Meeting for Tonight
- Health Care Hurdles
- The Presidential Planner
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The "Disenfranchised" Who Didn't Vote at All
May 31, 2008 5:41 PM
One talking point we're hearing a bit more about today has to do with the Democrats in Florida and Michigan who didn't bother voting in their state primaries because the DNC had told them their votes wouldn't count.
Would counting the two states' primaries not affirmatively disenfranchise these voters as surely as not counting the contests would disenfranchise those who did go to the polls?
Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz make "a statistical comparison with turnout in other states’ primaries" and conclude that "roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated."
Eric Kleefeld of the liberal muckraking site Talking Points Memo takes a look at these numbers and concludes that "while the Florida primary turnout was high relative to past primaries within the state, the relative Democratic turnout vs. the Republican primary lagged way behind relative party turnout in other primaries and caucuses across the country, where the voting counted from the start. And in Michigan in particular, the voting level there was simply abysmal. This suggests the possibility that far more Democratic voters would have come out in both states if they'd expected the contests to count, meaning that it's hard to argue that the primaries that actually took place really reflected the will of the people."
Any Floridians and Michiganers out there with thoughts on the matter?
-jpt
May 31, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | Share | User Comments (195)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why have all of my comments been removed. They were reasonable, well written, contained references, and without profanity.
Posted by: Cd1234567891 | Jun 3, 2008 1:48:41 PM
I am a Florida resident who did not vote because I follow the news and knew it wasn't going to count. I am an independent who would have had to re-register, which I was planning to do in order to vote for Obama.
People like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are disingenuous when they claim that on the one hand, Florida voters couldn't be expected to know about the disqualification, yet on the other hand, they knew plenty about Obama in January to make it a fair election despite no campaigning.
Posted by: MarcV | Jun 2, 2008 1:40:03 PM
Kate, you still haven't answered my question:
How is it that President Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs? You have admitted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. But then you sighted a briefing that George Tenent gave that said there were no WMDs as your proof that President Bush lied.
Actually it wasn't until AFTER we went into Iraq that we proved that Saddam Hussein no longer had WMDs. That was all the UN Security Council had demanded since 1991 -- one of the several conditions for the 1991 Gulf War cease fire to which Saddam Hussein agreed, but never complied. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; his neighbors would still think he had WMDs; he would still be raking in billions of dollars through the oil-for-food fiasco; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would have been tortured, raped and killed; and many more Palestinian families would have received up to $25,000 as a reward for a member of their family killing innocent Israelis in suicide bombings.
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 2, 2008 10:40:37 AM
James Danley
History we gave Iraq the knollage and components for the wmds then he used them on Iran and the kurds we then sent in the CIA and CDC folk to study the effectivness of the WMDS it all publicly available information. gave Iraq information and Intel on how to beat Iran in there war.. At the same time we gave Iran weapons and Intel on Iraq "Iran contra"
We then told Sadam he could invade Saudi Arabia when he did we put together the Coalition for the first golf war. Saudi Arabia was then idebted to us for there rescue and sold us cheap oil. We sold them arms.
After Iraqs defeat we then orginised weapon inspection to find the equipment and remaining WMDs we sold him. We then kept the no fly zone to keep him in check. We let him sell oil below market value under the oil for food program.
Then we Sadam decided to cut deals with non US and UK nations under the oil for food program mostly through france and germany and china. We could stand the so we went in search of wmds again.. We then went to war out side the un with and invaded the country so all the oil was ours. We didnt want to share how dear all these other countries profit of our deception and effort.
Now we are bogged down in a war paid for by the American people to insure US and UK oil companies have control of that oil.
3.3trillion could have invented an new form of fuel.
But oil comapnies dont profit from that!
Posted by: Kate | Jun 2, 2008 3:11:52 AM
Kate. You obviously didn't understand my post. Obama did not win any major swing states and did not win the popular vote just like fellow Democrat McGovern in 1972. Republican Nixon won 49 states in the G/E 520 electoral votes McGovern won 1 state 17 elctoral votes. If Obama is the nominee the same embarrassing loss will happen again. McCain will win by similar numbers.
Posted by: Bob4USA | Jun 2, 2008 2:45:51 AM
James Danlely
Come on now there all facts of history.. We had people inside every level of the Iraqi government... We really new everything he was up to.
Remember Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf he was working for MI6 (UK version of CIA).
Every wonder why some folks had to be killed yet other higher ups got big pay checks and to leave Iraq and live in Paris, London and United States ?
Do you read alot Danlely ?
Posted by: Kate | Jun 2, 2008 2:38:59 AM
Bob4USA,
History will only repeat itself if Hillary Clinton keeps tearing Obama done if she keep up with this there will be no where else to cast the blame..
Its time to move forward with Obama and Unite behind him as you said it will be the poor and middle class that will suffer if we dont !
obama 08 12
Posted by: Kate | Jun 2, 2008 2:23:01 AM
Kate, please enlighten me as to how you expect us to believe that on the one hand Donald Rumsfeld gave Iraq WMDs. Then on the other hand, when George Tenet briefs President Bush on the intelligence from an Iraqi foreign minister that Iraq does not have WMDs, President Bush is supposed to believe the latter when he apparently knows "for a fact" that we and the UK gave Iraq WMDs? And when President Bush "dismissed" the latter for what he "knows for a fact," all of a sudden he is lying? It sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 2, 2008 2:22:10 AM
I am extremely disappointed with Mr. Obama. I wanted to like him, but even more important, at this point I don't trust him. I believe he is what was once described as a "social climber" whose raw ambition causes him to talk down to Americans with his flowery speech, and who has a track record of being more interested in identifying with the "in crowd" (Exelon, oil companies, watered down legislation for cronies, unethical campaign practices in 1996, using lobbyists until a month ago while pretending not to, etc., than he is with improving the safety and quality of life for ALL Americans. I am truly afraid for the country because I believe he is insincere and extremely self centered. I do not identify him with FDR or JFK who both went out on big limbs to care for their country. I am so disappointed.
Now we are stuck with a clever politician who has a track record of deviousness and deceit and whose ego knows no boundaries. The truth is, I don't want to vote at all at this point, and that is the saddest place to be in that I can think of. I wonder how many others feel this way. There is no good candidate running for office.
Posted by: AnnD | Jun 2, 2008 1:01:29 AM
Florida voted. Almost 2M Democrats showed up to vote. Historic turnout. Obama ran hundreds of political ads in the week of the election. Hundreds! Intent is he was running in the Florida primary.
Stop the whining. Obama lost. H. will. never. win. Florida. I suggest you OBs move on.
By the way, best election ever. No paper filling up the mail box. No continuous ads except Obamas. No people with signs at the polls and getting in the way.
Most pleasant election I ever voted in.
Posted by: Madelyn110 | Jun 2, 2008 12:37:31 AM
I'm a Floridian and that study is a joke. They complicate the issue by comparing Dem and Repub turnout (do they adjust after each candidate drops). And they include states with differing primary systems. And they add to the mix the 2004 results.
I posted a diary on this at MyDD with the math showing that it doesn't make sense.
From that diary (this is closed primary states):
Average Dem Turnout 40.74%
Median Dem Turnout 41.75%
Florida Dem Turnout 42.30%
Average Repub Turnout 34.84%
Median Repub Turnout 36.08%
Florida Repub Turnout 50.96%
So while the Florida Dem turnout was slightly better than average, the Florida Repub turnout was much better than average. In fact, the only state that had a higher Repub turnout was Arizona, McCain's state.
...
They believe 2.85 million Florida Democratic voters should have turned out to vote. That's a lot of voters. In fact that is a 68.89% voter turnout.
Let's look at that with the other closed primary states.
Average Dem Turnout 40.74%
Median Dem Turnout 41.75%
Actual Florida Dem Turnout 42.30%
Projected Florida Dem Turnout based on Repub Turnout 68.89%
That would put Florida way ahead of every other closed primary state. The next closest would be Connecticut with 51.09%. Does this seem reasonable? For a primary?
Posted by: Step Beyond | Jun 2, 2008 12:30:10 AM
I once liked and respected Hilary Clinton, but no more. She has shown that she is willing to cheat and be completely unfair in order to try to win. To say that Obama should not receive any delegates from Michigan but that she should receive all of hers is just ridiculous. The votes weren't even supposed to count!!! Which by the way, she agreed to with no problem when she thought she had the nomination in hand. Now she is willing to say and do anything to try to win. I just can't respect anyone that will try to manipulate and scheme their way into winning.
Posted by: Lynn | Jun 1, 2008 11:36:16 PM
James Danley
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Posted by: Kate | Jun 1, 2008 11:31:04 PM
Dems are disappointing me as a dem. No wonder repubs win more. They stick together even if they hate McCain. We on the other hand like to divide ourselves into parts. Those parts are black, white, hispanic, gay, middle class or lower class and we lose everytime. Seperate and lose exerytime. It's bigger any one person. This is about the damn country you claim to love. We can barely afford gas, food and various other things we'll need to survive. All of these HRC people are crying about how she lost. She lost by thinking it was all hers to begin with. Those were her own words. Delegates will show why and yet You all are here talking of voting for McCain. LMAO, because you'll get what you deserve. No retirement to make it on, $7 a gal gas and a draft for your sons to go to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Thanks and the republicans thank you too.
Think of more than yourselves for once. I know I will vote a dem no matter who it is because for every time a bill came thru the house republicans followed suit and helped bush. Dems are always seperated. Don't be fooled with your heart, think with your head. I can'y stand another war or the 9 trill debt we're facing. McCain admits he dont doesnt know economics and my wallet can't chance that.
Peace
Posted by: jdubwill | Jun 1, 2008 11:25:45 PM
As a floridian that DID vote, I think the votes should not have been counted based on the fact that the DNC said it wouldn't seat the delegates. It is not right to change the rules at the end of the game. Both candidates agreed to not seat those two states delegates because they broke the rules. It is really as simple as that. They were told their delegates would not be seated if they moved up their primary, they chose to do it anyway. Therefore, they should have suffered the penalty. I knew when I went to the polls that my vote wouldn't count, I only went to show my daughter the voting process and explain it to her. I was already aware that our votes wouldn't count and I was okay with that because everything has rules and life has consequences for breaking them. So for the record, this floridian voter did not feel disenfranchised and not having the votes counted would not have swayed me from voting in November.
Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 1, 2008 11:23:28 PM
Kate, even if what you say is true...then explain to me how it is that Bush lied? Finally, if we went into Iraq for all of its oil, explain how it is that we still don't have ANY of Iraq's oil?
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 1, 2008 10:21:48 PM
The primaries are over. A loss is a loss and Hillary has lost.
Rules are rules. Let's move on.
Obama '08.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 1, 2008 1:20:06 PM
James Danley,
Are you for real ? We gave him he WMDS We America and the UK gave them to him look it up we played Iraq against Iran until this dumb twit Bush decided we would take Iraq and all it oil...
Donald rumsfeild gave Iraq wmds.
Posted by: Kate | Jun 1, 2008 9:37:36 AM
Paul, you wrote: "You can say Bush lied. But both Dem and Rep were lied to by Bush."
Actually it was Saddam Hussein who lied. Saddam wanted his neighbors to continue to believe that he had WMDs. I would very much like to know how it was Bush's lie that caused Congress to authorize regime change in Iraq back in 1998? While debating that resolution, many Democrats stood on the floor of the House and Senate and warned of the threat (and in some cases "imminent threat") that Saddam Hussein posed with his WMDs.
Posted by: James Danley | Jun 1, 2008 9:18:28 AM
glenn mcgahee
"If we're gonna take into account voters who didn't bother to vote, lets also take into account caucus goers who would have attended state Caucus' but had to work, couldn't get a sitter, had no transportation, were bullied out of the caucus halls, couldn't understand the rules, couldn't be there on time, etc."
There is a masive difference the people in Fl and Michigan where told the election didnt count... It wasnt that the had other things to do it was the election didnt matter and then suddenly it did because Hillary said so...
The rules where it didnt count and thats how it should have stayed..
In the end it means nothing it doesnt change the out come of the election!
Posted by: Kate | Jun 1, 2008 9:08:54 AM
Post a comment


