There is no way to accurately count a legitimate popular vote, given the disparity between caucus and primary states in terms of how many people vote.  And the Florida and Michigan results cannot in any realistic way be argued to represent an accurate count of the will of the Democratic voters in those states.  I find it incredible anyone would argue for considering votes cast in a state where one of the candidates was not on the ballot.

***************

SER: Only a revote should actually count as reflecting the "will of the people" in those states. They didn't have legitimate contests: The candidates didn't campaign and the public was told repeatedly that the primaries "didn't count." Clinton talks about representing the "working class" but what working class person is going to take time away from their job to vote in an election that "doesn't count"?

Further, Florida and Michigan broke the rules. The DNC will have to punish them somehow -- a 50% reduction of delegates makes sense as a start. Clinton's idea of seating the delegates exactly as the votes were cast is nuts. That's zero penalty, which creates chaos in future nominating contests.

The DNC has to stand by its decision somewhat -- it can't be, "these are the rules and don't break them unless it turns out that the election isn't a blow-out like we thought the primaries would be."

Prior to the tightness of this race, North Carolina and Oregon would have mostly been just as much a show contest as Florida and Michigan, as the race would have otherwise been decided.

So, the woman who says, "This will be over after Super Tuesday," suddenly wants every vote counted? Very convenient.

" Both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot so it's most definitely a fair representation of the popular vote in Florida."

Because neither campaigned there...at that point I'm sure there were still TONS of Democrats who were undecided, so campaigning would have made a difference. Also, the Florida voters KNEW ahead of time that their primary votes weren't going to count ultimately, so conceivably a lot of people who WOULD have voted, didn't bother. Especially younger voters that tend to favor Obama. It's not a fair, or accurate, representation at all.

Bill Clinton has also claimed that Florida's primary was "fair" because neither candidate campaigned. That's laughable on its face. If he had been running in 92 -- the relative unknown governor of a small Southern state -- against a former first lady and current senator of a major state, would he really believe such a match-up -- without the benefit of campaigning -- would be fair?

Okay, I'll admit it -- when he was president, I thought Clinton was okay.  Didn't bother me.  But ever since he's involved himself in his wife's campaign, I like him less and less -- worse, I'm starting to see why all the people who didn't like him as president didn't like him.

Because neither campaigned there...at that point I'm sure there were still TONS of Democrats who were undecided, so campaigning would have made a difference. Also, the Florida voters KNEW ahead of time that their primary votes weren't going to count ultimately, so conceivably a lot of people who WOULD have voted, didn't bother. Especially younger voters that tend to favor Obama. It's not a fair, or accurate, representation at all.

*******************************

To be extremely accurate about it, they had known since December of 2007.  So it wasn't something that just occurred out of the blue.

Also, I personally know of 3 people who did not vote in the primaries in FL because they knew their votes would not count.  2 were for Obama, one for Edwards.

I have no comment:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_en_mu/people_rice_ kiss

SER: Only a revote should actually count as reflecting the "will of the people" in those states. They didn't have legitimate contests: The candidates didn't campaign and the public was told repeatedly that the primaries "didn't count." Clinton talks about representing the "working class" but what working class person is going to take time away from their job to vote in an election that "doesn't count"?

A lot.  A whole lot. 

They didn't have the turnout rate for 2004 for the primary in Florida but in 2000 the rate was 12.7% (D & R combined). 

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004_Primaries.htm

In this primary for Florida the rate was  33.8%

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

Nearly triple the 2000 turnout.

Remember, Florida voters broke no rules.  They voted when the state allowed them to vote.  So if we are talking purely popular vote, they/we must be included.

Clinton Campaigned in Florida.  I saw the signs at a rally when she "won" the primary.  Did the people at the rally make the signs in their garages?

No.  Clinton was at a private fund raiser the night before the primary.  She was not campaigning in the state.

Okay, I'll admit it -- when he was president, I thought Clinton was okay.  Didn't bother me.  But ever since he's involved himself in his wife's campaign, I like him less and less -- worse, I'm starting to see why all the people who didn't like him as president didn't like him.

**************

SER: Yes, it's interesting from a historical perspective what effect the primary will have on the Clinton legacy. I think they've both come close to pretty much burning every possible bridge with the black community, who was always their staunchest supporters -- even during the impeachment morass. Young people, as well, are turning away, and they were always fond of them.

And a lot of Democrats are seeing the Nixonian tendencies the Clintons have and are making similar arguments that the GOP used to make.

The interesting thing is that I never suspected Hillary Clinton to be as relatively popular as she has been -- granted, a lot of that had to do with Edwards getting out of the race -- had he been able to stay in, I really think he would have siphoned off a lot of votes from Clinton -- the "hard-working white voters."

What shocks me is to see the master politician Bill Clinton degenerate into a blowhard jerk. That's disappointing.