I suppose as a Floridian, I see it differently here because all of the Democratic nominees were on the ballot in January. No one was 'shut out', supporters of all candidates could vote for their choice. If folks didn't vote, that was their choice and their fault. Also, Florida is a closed primary, meaning only registered Democrats can vote, so there was no "GOP" crossover to muddy the waters, and no independents gaming our process.
Except for a short press conference by Obama and a small amount of bleed over teevee ads to parts of Florida, there was no 'breaking' of the rules by the DNC about campaigning here, either, so that point is moot.
It is what it is. Hillary won the Democratic primary in Florida, and the delegates should be seated, and the votes should be a part of the popular vote total. I agree, MI is a different story, not because of anything Hillary did, but because Obama removed his name from the ballot there.
I've become so angered by the DNC treatment of Democrats in Florida that I've switched to NPA. I'm not the only one here to do that. How the DNC resolves this or doesn't will tell whether ANY Democrat can take FL for POTUS in the GE.
Before any of you all castigate me for switching to NPA, please remember that you stand solidly behind the independents who support your candidate. You have no right to denigrate me for joining the independent (NPA) group just because I don't support your candidate at this time.
Actually, I support your decision. I always put progressive values ahead of this abstraction "the party."
So I support your statement. I hope in the end you'll come to feel that Obama had earned your vote.
Secondly, I fully agree that the state parties of Michigan and Florida, together with the DNC, badly botched this whole operation.
Michigan was obviously an unfair election and it would disenfranchise voters to pretend otherwise.
I suspect the same of Florida to a lesser degree. Do you really think that it was a fair election in Flordia knowing that name recognition and familiarity counts for so much and HRC had a distinct advantage in this regard?
Either way, Florida's delegates become irrelevant to the outcome of the election if Michigan's are not seated with none going to Obama. Without that Mi result, HRC cannot get close enough in the seated delegates to argue for the supers to overturn it.
Anyway, I also think that well informed individuals can disagree about how much blame Clinton or Obama have in this. Many people, including me, feel that Clinton shares most of the blame.
My point is that it doesn't matter. Whether or not Obama is to blame, it's no excuse to strip his voters of their right to vote for him.
Thanks.
