Why MI and FL must revote
To revote, or not to revote, that is the question. Bloomberg News is reporting that the Michigan DNC has endorsed a revote today, and are just waiting for the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree. A secondary hurdle is that the plan must be approved by the end of the week by the Michigan legislature, which is slated to go on a two-week recess beginning as early as tomorrow.
The story goes on to detail the logistics, and Obama/Clinton bickering, but seriously, it seems fairly obvious that Obama is trying to hold out as long as possible, making a revote unachievable. He’s playing politics. Who can blame him? He wants to be president.
But in playing possum, Obama, the candidate of “yes we can,” according to Slate, is saying, “no we can’t” to Michigan voters, and acting “awful defeatist.” Slate:
“Politically, stalling makes sense for Obama. A Michigan revote would likely hand Clinton another victory and give her a boost in the popular vote. But his stance is hard to defend on democratic grounds. If there’s a chance to give Michigan voters a voice, how can Obama—the same guy who mocks Hillary for talking about “false hopes”—oppose that?”
And that’s the real problem with the candidate of hope. He is content to disenfranchise an entire state of voters, even though, it’s quite possible he could eke out a victory there.
Clinton, who is in Michigan today to try to drum up support for a revote, said, "Senator Obama speaks passionately on the campaign trail about empowering the American people. Today I am urging him to match those words with actions."
She also added that Florida’s votes should count as well. Personally, I can see how a revote is frustrating to an Obama-supporter, but I find it fairer than if super-delegates arbitrarily decide the nomination.
With Michigan and Florida revoting, we can feel confident that every vote counted, and if Obama still has a popular vote advantage, as well as a delegate lead, then telling Hillary supporters to suck it up won’t be as difficult. If Hillary wins the popular vote, and if she is chosen to be the nominee, explaining why this the case to Obama voters will also be easier. (Think: Thomas Jefferson). In either case, Dems will have an easier time unifying behind their candidate come November.
Moreover, a revote in Florida and Michigan will ensure that in-state Democrats won't harbor any hard feelings. It's important to think about the bigger picture; both states are crucial states for the general election.
And for all those who say a revote in Florida favors Clinton, I say first, so what? And second, it isn’t unheard of to think that Obama could substantially shrink her margin of victory. Where's the faith in Obama?
In conclusion, something needs to be worked out because denying a revote will just mean more trouble down the road. It’s truly an outrage that Guam and Puerto Rico will have a say in who the Democratic nominee will be, while Michigan and Florida will be forced to sit mutely at home.
As it stands now, any result without Michigan and Florida votes counted, is an injustice.
"As it stands now, any result without Michigan and Florida votes counted, is an injustice."
While I think it would be preferable for MI and FL to come up with viable revote strategies in the long term, "injustice" is not in play here. Where do we draw the line on breaking DNC party rules? Perhaps we should allow voters from any other state who wish to change their votes as well. I'm sure there are legislators from at least one newcomer state to Super Tuesday that wish they hadn't moved their primary up. "Oh, we didn't mean it, let us do it over." MI and FL knew well in advance what the consequences were. I'm sorry that the *residents* of those states have to suffer, but an injustice this does not make.
I am a Michigander. My political views are well left of center. In the January primary, I followed Kos's endorsement http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206
and voted the only way I knew to make my vote count. Thus many of the most politically engaged Democrats in Michigan may be ineligible to vote in the primary. That said I doubt a Hillary win is a foregone conclusion. 14.3% of Michgian is black, 1.2% Arab (the highest in the country), much of the white vote is Republican (see the demographics of Oakland county and West Michigan).
Regardless of the outcome a revote in both Michigan and Florida will only help the Democratic brand. It will keep the candidates in the headlines for perhaps a week per state. It will make the voters of those states stop and think an extra time before November.
I revote doesn't just help decide the candidate, it strengthens the Democratic brand moving towards November.
"While I think it would be preferable for MI and FL to come up with viable revote strategies in the long term, "injustice" is not in play here. Where do we draw the line on breaking DNC party rules?"
When did obeying the rules of the DNC (which made exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) trump one of the founding principles of our nation, namely democracy? And even if, somehow, the DNC did, hypothetically, trump democracy, why should Florida Democrats -- whose primary was set by a Republican legislature and Republican Governor in Resolution 527, so named for the number of votes between Bush and Gore -- be punished for this Republican political trick?
But I still think democracy wins.