Shutting down the "seat FL" meme or why Florida shouldnt count as is

[yourguide]

A Mason Dixon poll of a small sampling of FL voters in Nov 2007 showed

Name Recognition:

HRC: 100%
Obama: 98%

Based on 1750000 turnout, that 2% equates into 35000 voter advantage for Clinton out of the gate. That's an automatic 51% to 49% in FAVOR of HRC solely based on name recognition and not being allowed to campaign. Based on the pledged delegate count that is also a 4 delegate lead all things being "equal" in FL.

Second fact:

28% (490,000 voters) had a neutral or no opinion of Obama
15% (262,000 voters) had a neutral or no opinion of HRC

So based on these numbers a minimum of 28% of the electorate was undecided and could sway, a maximum of 43% of the voters were undecided and could go either way.

THAT IS WHY CANDIATES GO OUT AND CAMPAIGN! If campaigning and advertising was not important in swaying voters then they would stay in Washington. They go because it is an important part of the process.

Sorry people, based on these numbers alone I would suggest it was not a level playing field to begin with so again they candidates SHOULD be afforded the opportunity to appeal to the voters.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2007-11/33818342.pdf.


Sorry, they cant be seated as is - I am completely in favor of a do over but they just cannot be seated as is, as all things truly were NOT equal.

[Iggo]

1. Ah, the "meme" canard again.

Or was it the "canard" meme? I forget.

[yourguide]

2. Sorry, facts are facts.

and unfair is unfair.

[Birthmark]

5. LOL Yeah, disenfranchising voters...

...for something they didn't do is "fair" in your view.

2% lower name recognition, though...OMG!!!!!

I suggest your priorities are out of whack. Maybe a front alignment?

[yourguide]

9. 2% lower name recognition equals

51% Hillary and 49% Obama out of the box, 35,000 fewer votes, and 4 fewer delegates.


May I suggest YOUR priorities are out of whack. I want a fair election, not a Soviet style election thanks.

[Birthmark]

12. Utter nonsense

But the most important issue is that you are more worried about your candidates' delegate count than you are your fellow Democrat's right to vote. You are signing on to disenfranchising people who have done nothing wrong.

[yourguide]

14. And you are signing on

to disenfranchise ALL of the voters outside of Florida who made their decision based upon "kicking the tires"

you just want the voters to be seated based on name recognition.

if you are SO worried about disenfranchising voters, why not accept a revote?

[Birthmark]

15. That is a complete lie.

Counting FLs voters can in no way be construed as disenfranchising anyone. I can only assume that you don't know what disenfranchisement means.

[yourguide]

17. I know what disenfranchising means.

Counting FLs voters without a fair fight certainly disenfranchises the rest of us by you guys gaming the outcome in favor of one candidate.

Again, if you are for this being fair - what about the voters in FL who didnt vote because they were told their vote didnt count? Arent you worried about disenfranchising them if you dont include them now?

Again, why wont YOU support a revote?

[Birthmark]

22. No, I don't think you do.

I am against a re-vote because it is STILL disenfranchisement. We've already voted in a fair, legal manner. Throwing that vote out for reasons wholly unrelated to the voter is disenfranchisement. Plain and simple.

I'm sorry your guy lost. So did mine.

Oh, some little known facts about Florida:

- We get CNN
- We get MSNBC
- We get NBC
- We get ABC
- We get CBS
- We even get Fox

So, it's not like Obama was an unknown.

[yourguide]

23. Based on the polls

2% of dems have him as an unknown.

And again I go back to why do candidates campaign and advertise if

- We get CNN
- We get MSNBC
- We get NBC
- We get ABC
- We get CBS
- We even get Fox


was enough to convince voters to vote for them?

It's about message, not soundbytes. That's why candidates go and campaign.

[Birthmark]

25. You mean "based on A poll"...

...that was ten weeks old at the time of the primary and with a huge MOE. Real pursuasive. lol

Sound bytes? Seriously, how bad is your memory? Or do you seriously believe that we didn't get to see Obama's speeches after primaries, for instance?

And again, you are more worried about Obama than the rights of your fellow Democrats. That's just wrong.

[yourguide]

27. No, I am worried about the rights of ALL fellow democrats...

ALL of them, not just the ones in Florida.


Again I ask you, why did HRC go to Ohio 23 times if campaigning wasnt important, if the news cycle was enough to carry her to victory?

It's called a presidential campaign because it's a CAMPAIGN.

[Birthmark]

29. No, you are worried about Obama.

Aside from MI, no other voters are being disenfranchised. You have made it abundantly clear that for you this is about Obama.

[yourguide]

35. Right

so let's seat Michigan too then? It was exactly the same there, no campaigning. That's brilliant.


You have made it abundantly clear that for you that this is about YOU. Screw all of the other voters in FL that didnt participate because they thought their votes wouldnt count. And screw the voters making an eductated decision based upon having the opportunity to have the candidates tell them directly what they believe and what they stand for.

You know what, call the 115 state legislators that voted for this, they are the ones that screwed you guys out of the process.

[Birthmark]

37. You're just a treasure trove of nonsense.

The gift that keeps giving. FL turnout was 133% HIGHER in 2008 than in 2004. There is simply no evidence that anyone, let alone appreciable numbers, stayed home on primary day. All the candidates appeared on the ballot. People voted. It's a done deal.

MI is a different situation entirely. Most of the candidates were NOT on the ballot. So there's really no case that can be made that MI HAD a real primary. But it's up to the people of MI to decide how to fix that. I'll support whatever they decide as long as it's fair to the voters.

[yourguide]

39. AND THERE WERE ONLY 4 STATES THAT HAD LESS DEM TURNOUT THAN

REPUBLICAN!!

AZ - McCain's home state
Utah - Romney's home state

FLORIDA
MICHIGAN

So sounds to me like many voters KNEW their votes wouldnt count and didnt go to the polls.


Doesnt wash...

[Birthmark]

44. Nothing will wash with you.

You're a partisan first. However, FL's Democratic turnout was 133% higher than it was in 2004. Our 2008 turnout was on a par with Texas' Democratic turnout. Texas has a population of five million MORE people than FL, so %age wise, I suspect FL's Dem turnout was a bit better. You are simply spinning in an attempt to hijack delegates for your candidate or deprive your oppenent of the delegates. It's shameful.

[yourguide]

47. And let's compare the 2004 dem turn out to the 2004 republican turn out?

Let's compare apples with apples. So how many republicans came out in 2004?

Now tell me how many republicans came out in 2006.

[Birthmark]

50. Um, I don't know how to break this to you...

...but there was no real Republican Primary in FL in 2004. Bush was unopposed.

However, in 2000, which was the last contested Republican Primary turnout in FL exceeded Democratic Primary turnout by a substantial margin.

[yourguide]

52. I know that...so my point is you cant really compare 2004 with now because

you arent including anything to benchmark it against compared to the rest of the nation.


So what are the 2000 numbers? got those? and what were the 2008 rethug totals in FL?

[Birthmark]

55. We can compare the Democratic numbers

...of 2004 to the Democratic numbers of 2008, though.

As for the Repub to Democratic numbers here they are (rounded to the nearest thousand):

2000 Total Repub votes - 699,000; Total Democratic votes - 552,000 {1.266 Repub votes/ 1 Democratic vote}

2008 Total Repub votes - 1,949,000; Total Democratic votes - 1,741,000 {1.119 Repub votes/ 1 Democratic vote}

You have to add these up your self since DOS site can't be bothered to list the totals:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=1/29/2008&DATAMODE=

[yourguide]

26. Oh and why did HRC go to Ohio 23 times

if campaigning wasnt and important part of the process?

[Birthmark]

28. I don't care about campaigning.

I care about the rights of voters. Sorry you feel differently. I'd be saying the exact same thing if Obama won. I suspect that you'd be arguing the opposite of your current position.

[yourguide]

33. The VOTERS do CARE ABOUT CAMPAIGNING!!!

IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS OF THEM PICKING A CANDIDATE!

And I would feel exactly the same way if Obama won, in fact I would have considered NOT voting for Obama if he was asking for Michigan to be seated because that election had only one of the 4 frontrunners on the ballot.

It's even worse that HRC is asking michigan to be seated. It's pathetic.

[Birthmark]

36. You've decided that, have you?

LOL

Thanks, but no thanks. We had a legitimate, legal, record breaking Democratic Primary here in FL. There is no legitimate reason to disenfranchise the voters. Your attitude is pretty harmful to Obama, actually.

[yourguide]

40. Like I said

If campaigning didnt matter to the VOTERS then why did HRC go to Ohio 23 times?


Tell me...I'm waiting.


Your attitude is harmful to your own health. I'm shocked you havent already come down with a nasty case of spontaneous human combustion.

[Birthmark]

43. You are changing the subject,

...or at least you are trying to. Not gonna work. There is simply no rational reason to disenfranchise the voters of FL. None. Floridians voted in record numbers (for a primary) and on the day appointed by the FL State Legislature. They did nothing wrong. Additionally, there are options open to the DNC short of disenfranchisement. Hell, even the Republicans thought of one.

Spontaneous Human Combustion doesn't exist --much like your commitment to voting rights.

[yourguide]

45. How am I changing the subject?

I am asking how an election can be fair if candidates are not allowed to promote his or herself. Especially when one candidate has a much stronger name recognition, being first lady for 8 years, over another? You keep claiming this was fair when the truth is, it wasnt.

Well?

[Birthmark]

49. The candidates were allowed to promote themselves

The playing field is not level and never has been, ask Richardson or Kucinich about that. Tough stuff for Obama. In the meantime, disenfranchising FL voters to "be fair" to Obama is just shameful. Not even the Republicans could bring themselves to disenfranchise their party members. Nope, that took the DNC.

[yourguide]

51. NO THEY WERENT

They were not allowed to campaign there, which meant no local media coverage there, no chance to meet the voters there.

and they werent allowed to advertise there.

Sorry, no matter how many times you say it over and over - there is a democratic process, part of that PROCESS is campaigning. Per HEAD OF THE DEM PARTY IN FLORIDA:

Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman stated:

"It is important that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and important requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."


Even the head of the dems in florida understands that ANY process MUST include the FULL participation from both candidates. Why cant you understand that?

[Birthmark]

54. No local media coverage?

Are you kidding? lol

Ah, so no advertising is a problem? You really think that those 30 vacuous seconds spots are informative? Um, no.

I don't CARE about the candidates. I care about the voters. The voters who were penalized for something that they didn't do. Now you may think that we're a bunch of idiots who can't figure out who to vote for without TV advertising, but I'm here to tell you that we're as smart as any other similar-sized group. We are quite capable of figuring out who to vote for without the physical presence of the candidate or a steady stream of advertising.

And vote we did. In record numbers. Your guy lost. Get over it. But if your way of dealing with that is doing something that not even Republicans could bring themselves to do, I suggest you are misguided. And that's putting it kindly.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

48. She won by a lot more then 2%

The results were 50% to 33% in favor of Clinton. That gap is far from your 2%...

[Iggo]

30. Ah-ha!!!

The facts-are-facts meme, and the unfair-is-unfair canard!

Or is it the facts-are-facts canard, and the unfair-is-unfair meme?

:hide:

[Birthmark]

32. LOL!

You're my new best friend. :)

[Birthmark]

3. Oh, please!

1. The negative opinions of the candidates have been entirely left out. (Gee, I wonder who had higher negatives, Hillary or Obama? lol )

2. Hillary won by substantially more than 35,000 votes.

3. It is unAmerican, unDemocratic, unfair, and should be illegal to disenfranchise voters for actions in which they had no part.

4. Even the Republicans could only bring themselves to penalize FL and MI half their delegates. The Republicans are more liberal towards their own voters than the Democratic Party?! What the hell is that?

The DNC is pissing on a live wire with this nonsense.

Oh, and I'm sorry your candidate didn't win. Mine didn't, either. That's the way it goes.

There will be no re-vote.

[yourguide]

7. LOL

The negatives arent a factor in the name recognition advantage game but if you must insist:

23% HRC
26% Obama

HRC won by more than 35,000 votes but what about the other 490,000 that might have based their vote on the stronger name recognition? And what about those 4 delegates that automatically go to her based on that? what about that 2% when TX was as close as 4% where there was a real campaign?

and yes, it is in fact unAmerican, unDemocratic, unfair, and should be illegal to disenfranchise voters for actions in which they had no part - you guys should arrest ALL of the 115 members of your legislature that voted in favor of disenfranchising.

It's not about my candidate not winning, it's about it not being a fair fight.

[Birthmark]

11. I want the source for those negatives

I have *never* seen a poll of HRC's negatives that was lower than the mid-30s.

[yourguide]

13. Go to the link provided in the first post. it's IN the findings

Please bear in mind this poll was among registered DEMS not all probable voters, her negatives will be lower among dems rather than the general electorate voters.

[Birthmark]

16. ROFLMAO!!

A MOE of +/- 6%

That's not a poll, it's a guesstimate. I don't remember EVER seeing a poll with a higher MOE.

Not to mention that that poll was taken about 10 WEEKS before the primary. lol

[yourguide]

20. So your point is 6% more democrats hate her?

And that 6% works against you my friend. Because Obama didnt get 100% recognition, he could have been as low as 92% recognition.

So mason dixon polls are ok on this board only when they suit your purpose? Is that it?


Unless you have better data to back it up, I'm afraid after researching this is the only poll that is specific to name recognition in FL within any reasonable amount of time near the election.

Please find something even close to comparable.

[Birthmark]

24. And Hillary could have been at 94

My point is that that poll was severely out of date by the time the primary came along, had a HUGE MOE, and is indicative of...well, not much. You and I could have been as accurate by using our own experiend and just guessing.

We all knew who Obama was and what he stood for. And even if we didn't, so what? You're more worried about fairness to Obama than you are the voting rights of Floridians. That's just wrong.

[yourguide]

31. Not based on 100% she couldnt have been

100% is an absolute.

Like I said, find some other comparable data, I beg you.

You state: "We all knew who Obama was and what he stood for. And even if we didn't, so what? "

So what??? The point of a friggin presidential campaign is so that the voters GET TO KNOW the candidate??? That's why it's called a campaign and not a presidential news cycle strategy.


You have an election without the voters having an opportunity to get to know the candidate sounds a lot like what just went down in russia.

[Birthmark]

34. You don't know what a MOE is, do you?

A MOE of +/- 6% means that here true recognition could have been as low as 94%. (It obviously can't be over 100%). It also means that Obama's recognition could have been as high as 100%. That's right, according to that poll, Obama MAY have had better name recognition than Clinton. I think you need a bigger poll. ;)

[yourguide]

38. MOE as margin of error.

Based on 304 democratic voters (which was the total number of dems polled), to get 100% name recognition, assume that the threshold to round up is 99.5% which means dividing .005 by the 304 voters gives you 1.525 voters that could have POSSIBLY said no name recognition, because you cant have .5, then let's be generous and assume 1, 1 total dem voter. Which means the total number of voters who could have POSSIBLY said they dont recognize her name is 1. 100% in polling, as is 0% is an absolute under 1000 in a total sample.

[Birthmark]

46. Oh, so in your world

"+/-" or only means what you NEED it to mean, not what it actually means? That must be handy, incorrect, but handy for your emotional needs.

[yourguide]

53. I'm afraid you dont know anything about polling.

samples under 1000 mandate that 0% and 100% are absolutes.

[Birthmark]

56. Nope.

-6 means -6. That MOE means something. And that MOE also applies at the 95% confidence level; meaning that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the polling data is wrong beyond the MOE.

So, your poll means (if it means anything at all), that Hillary's name recognition could be as low as 94% and Obama's could be as high as 98%. (Nineteen times out of twenty, anyway.)

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Clinton's name recognition was any higher than Barack's --at least not from THAT poll.

[Maribelle]

4. Edwards campaigned extensively in Florida in 2004.

Yet he got a 3% "don't recognize", that's more than Obama got.

[yourguide]

8. Um are you suggesting that EXACTLY the same people

lived in FL in November of 2007 as did in 2004?

[TAWS]

6. For those people that said there was record turnout, MORE REPUBLICANS VOTED THAN DEMOCRATS in FL n/t

[yourguide]

10. Yes, and there were only 4 states in the US that had that happen

AZ - McCain's home state
Utah - Romneys home state

and the two states where voters were told their votes wouldnt count:

MICHIGAN
FLORIDA

[redqueen]

18. They absolutely cannot be seated as-is.

That disenfranchises who knows how many Floridians who didn't bother voting in their state's clusterfuck of a primary.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Sorry, but this is idiotic.

Hillary's name recognition is a comical stat to use... don't half the people who recognize her name hate her?

Do you believe that people that vote in a Democratic primary are more or less likely to have heard of Obama than the average Florida registered voter?

The OP is just sad sophistry.

[msallied]

21. The "Go with the devil you know" philosophy

same thing that worked for Bush in 2004. Don't act like it doesn't exist.

[yourguide]

41. Not my numbers, that's the poll.

and the bottom line is that 2% equates into 4 delegates, a 51% - 49% starting point, and 35,000 votes.


Her negs in this poll, again registered dems only, was 23%

[seabeyond]

42. this is a real DUH that the hillary people are "pretending" they dont get

i hate pretend stupid. my kids no better than to even try pretend stupid. my niece and nephews forget and try every once in a while. boy are they sorry. then the kids friends dont know better when they do it and MANNNNNNN, do they jump back when i get on them for it