I've got one thing to say, and it's not a very long thing. With KY and OR holding their primaries yesterday, both Dems were out in the news once again. Obama making yet another historic speech, this time in Iowa, and Hillary clinging to the idea that she's got the popular vote (if you ignore all those who caucused) and Michigan and Florida do and will count.
I don't think it's fair to disgregard Michigan and Florida. It's not fair to the candidates, and it's not fair to the voters. I won't try to argue with Hillary on that.
However (and this is the part that NOBODY in the MSM or even Air America ever says) neither the MI nor the FL primaries were reflections of the will of the voters in those states. To me, that is the THE reason why the votes previously cast CANNOT count.
When Michigan and Florida went to vote, they were told their votes didn't count. Yes, some people turned out. Even in Michigan, without the names on the ballot, some turned out to vote against Hillary. But many stayed home. Others voted in the Republican primary.
Surely those who are having their votes ignored are mad, but wouldn't those who stayed home be madder if the votes ARE counted? They had opinions too, but their choices were not included among the vote tallies.
Furthermore, those states never had a chance to meet the candidates. Neither Obama nor Clinton ever went to either state to make their case to the people there. I have little doubt that the election results would have been different if both candidates (or all of the candidates, in Michigan) were campaigning based on the issues relevant in those states.
For these reasons, the election results are entirely invalid. Elections are supposed to measure the will of the people. Neither of these primaries did that.
Yes, these were rules agreed to by both candidates upfront, and you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the race, I agree. But I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about the point I am making here, that the MI and FL primaries do not reflect what the voters would have chosen if they were told their votes would count.
If, perhaps, the elections yielded valid results, then I would be willing to see some kind of compromise involving seating the delegates based on the early primaries. Even though it's changing rules in the middle of the game. If the candidates both agreed to it, I'd say fine. (Not that my opinion counts terribly much in the larger scheme of things, but I'll give it to you nonetheless.)
The way things look now, I'd most like to see caucuses or (if possible) special primary elections held in both Michigan and Florida. I wouldn't even care if they just split the delegates of each state 50/50. I heard they had some sort of compromise they offered the candidates that gave Clinton a bit of an advantage, but the Clinton camp refused it.
The best possible outcome would be to give the 2 states in question a chance to meet the candidates, give the candidates a chance to campaign in both states, and re-do the voting in some form (whether a caucus or primary). That's been obvious for a while and it hasn't happened, so I don't have much hope.
A second best option would be the 50/50 option or another form of a compromise. Something that just puts this whole matter to bed and hopefully cools down any anger from those who feel like they voted and weren't counted, or those who feel like they didn't vote and were slighted that way because they could have counted.
However, no matter what happens, I think it needs to be stated very clearly that the results of the Florida and Michigan elections are utterly invalid inasfar as they do not reflect the will of the electorate. I haven't heard this point made by the MSM, and Hillary isn't dropping the idea yet that Michigan and Florida's results count.
I don't know where this is going to go, but I doubt I'd win Hillary over with the case I've made here. I never thought I'd agree with something Jeff Gannon said, but the woman is "divorced from reality."