Fogu2 says different.

He thinks everyone who would have voted did. So, take that, Eric.

Eric, it's not just that, it's that everyone knew it didn't count - even those who VOTED.

I have family and friends in both states - some of them voted because they felt like it, but they KNEW it wasn't counting for anything and countless others stayed home as a result.

And this also brings up the other great question that no one can answer - why do those who stayed home because the DNC said their vote wouldn't count get punished?

Thanks for this, Mr Kleefeld. I had long suspected that this was the case, but here we see actual numerical evidence for what had merely been a hunch until now. Incidentally, what is that one other state on the same side of the line as FL and MI?

Good points Eric.

The end is almost near.

OT: I assume TPM received the same excerpts from Obama's speech planned for 7:45ET as First Read. Why didn't the warrant a post?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1086950.aspx

Point is, if many more voters turned out, there is no evidence that the percentage break would have been any different for Clinton. She won what she one. Let Obama fight with Edwards and Biden to determine the split of the uncommitteds.

BTW, if there was a higher turnout Clinton might be even farther ahead in the popular vote assuming her percentage of that increased vote was the same as the actual election.

Well Eric, you just exceeded my expectations with that headline.

Thanks for that Nope - really. Thanks.

it's hard to argue that the primaries that actually took place really reflected the will of the people.

Bingo! This is also true of non-binding primaries in Washington and Nebraska. When the contest doesn't count, many potential voters may not show up, and those who don't may differ materially from those who do.

Who stayed home?

Names and addresses please.

I would also submit that demographically, those that DID show up to vote in the beauty contest in Florida skewed fairly heavily in Clinton's favor. I think it is fair to say that those of retirement age, women, avid Hillary supporters trying to get her back in the race after SC, and deep blue life-long democrats (who I think at the time probably favored the "establishment" Hillary more so than perhaps today) were FAR more likely to make their ways to the polls for the "meaningless" vote than young people, minorities, and college-educated, middle-class careerists.

A quick glance at the FL exit polls confirms that a full 72% of voters were 45+ years of age (39% 60+), compared to only 9% in the 18-29 bracket. Likewise 59% were women, and 80% were white. Can anyone honestly believe that we would see the same numbers if this had been a fully contested primary?

Have you been on an Obama conference call, Eric? Hillary is not going to be pleased.

Good job on the number crunching!

It must be very frustrating for Hillary supporters that so far her arguments about the popular vote metric and seating Michigan and Florida as is have completely failed to sway the the decision makers - the delegates and superdelegates.

At the end of the day the MSM and rank and file Obama supporters aren't the ones who are going to make the final decision. We actually had no say in it. It is the leaders of the party (superdelegates) who look like they've decided that they will vote to nominate the candidate who won the most pledged delegates - even including a scenario in which the results from an election in which he was prohibitted by the party to participate in and another in which his name was not on the ballot are fully counted.

So, the party decided to go by a fixed metric (pledged delicates no matter how you count them) instead of looking at a an ambiguous metric that seeks to compare primary votes to caucus votes and includes a state that saw no campaigning and another state in which one candidates name was not on the ballot.

Do you really think that anyone but Hillary supporters are going to feel like she got robbed because the pledged delegate winner got the nomination?

Thank you! The rules committe must uphold its ruling and not seat any delegates for Florida or Michigan based on the tainted and unrepresentative primaries that took place in violation of DNC rules.
I appreciate the evidence that backs up my claim that these primaries were 'both' 'tainted'.
Voter supression occurred because many voters trusted the DNC and the candidates (including Hillary and Ickes) when they were told that there votes and primaries would not count in the presidential nomination process. You have provided at least an idea of how many people that might have voted, did not vote because of what they were told about the process. This is voter supression and it happened in both states. Voter choice was also supressed... candidates did not campaign in these two states. The Clintons were a household name so of course there could be skewed results in their favor with no real competition.
I don't understand why I hear arguments that Florida has more reason to be counted than Michigan... In my opinion these primaries were absolutely not representative of the will of the people in either state.
I would love for the rules committee to find a way to seat the delegates of FL and MI in a way that is NOT based on the 'tainted' primaries but was fair and equitable with the intention of supporting party unity. Seat them all 50/50 without the right to change their vote/representation for president at the convention.
I am outraged on behalf of the people of Florida and Michigan. I felt so angry when I saw Rep. W-Shultz on a news program yesterday trying to excuse the democratic leaders in Florida that voted for the election 'package' that moved up their primary because there was something else in the package that they wanted. The voters should hold their elected officials accountable for tampering with their ability to parcipate fully in their nomination process.

Hey, wait. What ever happened to "it's already over"?

Why do the Obamites even care about this?

Puzzling.

FL and MI should be seated as voted. Anything less is an insult to the voters and a failure by Dean and his ilk to accept responsibility for this debacle.

It's worth noting that we've heard almost no grumbling from the actual voters in MI and FL about the supposed disenfranchisement that was inflicted upon them. You would think that if those voters were pissed off and offended, we would have seen massive rallies, strong expressions of their discontent over the past six months. We've heard almost nothing, other than the sound of Hillary and her surrogates whining 24/7. The DNC warned both FL and MI that they could lose their status if they went ahead with early primaries; I don't recall Hillary intervening with officials in those states to think twice about their actions before they disenfranchised their own voters. HRC herself is on videotape acknowledging that those elections would not count, and she signed an agreement to that effect. She also says that the only reason that her name was still on the ballot in Michigan is because she "forgot" to remove it. So now she is telling us that she is deeply concerned about the sanctity of the vote in those states, and that she deserves to have those delegates in her column? Oy. What kind of banana republic would count the votes in an election when the candidates and the voters were told that the results were meaningless? If this happened in Bolivia or Albania or Uganda or someplace, we'd be howling with laughter.

It's also worth pointing out that Hillary only got 55% of the vote in Michigan, a dismal showing, given that she was alone on the ballot.

And Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned about the voters who were disenfranchised because they didn't vote in an election in which they were told beforehand that it wouldn't count. The woman is a shameless political hack.

Clinton was likely way over-represented in the Florida vote.

Four days BEFORE the Florida primary, as it was becoming clear that she was headed for a big defeat in South Carolina and that her candidacy was in serious trouble, she started publicly calling for the party to change the rules and seat all of the delegates from Florida (as well as Michigan, which had already voted):
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_dnc_should_seat_the_michigan_and_florida_delegates.php

Her pushing this argument must have drawn more of her Florida supporters to the polls and swayed some undecideds too.

This has been reason No. 637 why the Florida and Michigan results are tainted.

"If polls with only 1000 people can fairly accurately reflect voter sentiment, how about polls with over 1 million people. Prove to me that a poll with 1 million people is less accurate than on with 1000."

Polling is not voting. One is random sampling. Voting is biased (surprise, unless you throw darts at the ballot).

I can't believe that anybody with any sense whatsoever is arguing Hillary's side with a straight face.

She was against counting FL and MI before she was for it. That's a fact.

Saying that Hillary 'won' Michigan and Florida 'fair and square' is like saying Saddam won re-election fair and square last time he was 'voted' upon. Never mind that he, like Hillary, was the only name on the ballot.

Do caucuses really reflect the will of the people? Nope.

The premise of this post is absolutely right. Everybody knew the elections were all screwed up and probably wouldn't count. Candidates weren't on the ballots. If those elections had been real primaries, turnout would have been huge.

The intellectual bankruptcy of a certain group's arguments is breathtaking.

Thanks for giving us real numbers to play with! It makes sense and feels right, but I'm always happier with numerical evidence.

Obviously, the only thing that matters is Hillary gets 100% of what she wants. 2007: she thinks she in the "inevitable nominee" and this will all be over Feb. 5th. No mention of counting all votes and letting every state vote before declaring victory.

If Obama had won FL, do you really think she would be making all this fuss? of Course not. She is a politcal hack opportunist, who only cares about one thing, being President. If she can't be President now, then she will fight on to to the convention, divide they party, convince her supporters they were "Robbed", pray for McCain's victory, then on Nov 5th, say I told you so. Sick, sad, pathetic

If the Democratic party is serious about stopping states from moving their primaries up in the calendar, then Florida and Michigan should NOT count. This is completely irrespective of whether you support Obama, Hillary or anyone else.

The rules are the rules and if they need to be changed that is something that should be looked at AFTER the race is over. Anything else is akin to moving the goalposts during the game...bad idea and completely unfair.

All of Eric's statistics make a compelling argument and need to be considered in light of tomorrow's "meeting", but in reality, and in all fairness, they should not matter a jot!

In our democracy, the only votes that count are those votes that have been cast. You have to exercise your civic duty to vote for it to count.

The rest who didn't vote gave up their voices by default to those who voted who now are the voices of FL and MI.

You can't just dismiss that the votes cast don't reflect the will of the people. It's most likely that that the votes of those who didn't make it to the polls mirror those who voted.

You can't argue about something that isn't there. The only valid arguments about votes are on the votes that exist or were cast.

You're simply stretching the what might be to fit your agenda.

I can't speak fot MI, but in Florida there was a huge, and I mean HUGE, constitutional amendment on the ballot that set a cap on the ability of local governments to generate revenue through the property tax, the primary means of funding education and most of the rest of local government that has an actual affect people lives on a day to day basis.

I don't believe you should be required to prove you're not a dumb ass to vote. I think that you should be allowed to vote regardless of wheather or not the local school system failed to educate you, or even if you completely lack inate ability.

However, if you are an Obama supporter in Florida, and you didn't vote because you didn't think that your vote would count towards the nomination, inspite of the fact that the constitutional amendment was on the ballot, you're just too stupid for anyone to take your opinion seriously.

Am I incorrect in remembering Debbie WassermanSchultz discuss that the date was changed in order to pass some sort of state law or constitution that would allow recounts in the Presidential elections in November and they had to do this so there was no way another 2000 would occur? It appears weren't they also voting for other state representatives as well, so saying people stayed home because the dem vote didn't count isn't quite accurate?
Like I said, I may be remembering incorrectly but I remember also another FLorida resident saying that the state people they voted on were serving because of that vote so it must be a legal vote and if people didn't vote they have only themselves to blame?

Good article! Thanks.

OMG ... at least there is a constructive conversation going on here. Just to get my blood flowing, I occasionally visit pro-Hillary sites. I've attempted to communicate logically with the pro-Hillary supporters, but to no avail. I've been called every name in the book and then some for trying to reason with them.

Anyways, thanks Eric and everyone else who has joined in on this conversation. IMO, MI and FL delegates should NOT be seated. It was a flawed primary and no vote/delegate should count. Period. After this election, the DNC should rethink and possibly restructure their procedures, but not in the middle of this election.

FYI, I have numerous family and friends that live in MI and FL. Each and every one of them chose not to vote in their respective primaries because they were told their vote would not count. So, how can counting the votes (or seating the delegates) NOW, seeing that it only matters to the Clinton camp, be a fair representation of the will of the people of MI and FL??? The Clinton supporters make my head spin ... no, on second thought, my head explode.

Tomorrow, instead of the the "Brooks Brothers" pounding on windows, breaking down doors, etc., we have the "Brooks Brothers Babes" taking a stand. Maybe some romantic trysts between the brothers and the babes can ensue before the November election and we won't have to concern ourselves with them ever again.

Thanks again, Eric!

I just posted a blog topical to this subject. Click here if you'd like to talk more about Michigan's primary.

Thanks to Josh for saying what I've been saying ever since Hillary's camp tried to claim that we Michiganders were at risk of being disenfranchised:

Seating the delegates following an illegitimate non-primary would serve to disenfranchise ~1 million Michigan voters who were told the primary wouldn't count.

As a Michigan voter, I have been hoping for a new primary. I am concerned about the precedent that is set, by rationalizing denying citizens the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. In Michigan, Governor Granholm, Chairman Brewer, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Rep Dingel and his wife and Senator Levin all pushed to push the primary forward, based on the lie that they wanted to put the people's of Michigan's issues into the forefront. A lie, given the fact that these powerful democrats did nothing to increase civic engagement into the process. They sought to exploit their positions to promote their candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Citizens have a right to vote, the democratic party in Michigan denied us our right to vote for the candidate of our choice, and have fought to deny us another primary.

I don't want our delegates seated unless we have another primary.

BTW, I also want Whore Dean removed from DNC chair, because while he pretended to butt heads with Brewer, the two are as close as two peas in a pod. Dean is as a sham as a democrat, and DNC chair.

You know to be honest you are right. I do think that possible general election results do not necessarily correlate to the Democratic primary results. But I still think that now and then, Hillary would have won big in any scenario in the Florida primary.

I like the reflex of referring to the arguments of Hillary supporter as "desperation". Par for the course, but still very mature!

I thought caucuses were such a brilliant invention because they reflect the views of the really committed Democrats.

What's more committed than people voting despite being told their vote won't count?

What a completely bogus argument. The people who voted in Florida and Michigan were participating in completely legal and valid state election, and what you choose to forget is that there were many other offices and questions on the ballot as well. Those who voted were only doing their patriotic duty as citizens. Those who didn't vote are self-absorbed and unpatriotic people who, like felons, don't really don't deserve the right to vote in any case. And to contend that we must punish and penalize all the people who did their duty and voted, for the sake of some lazy, shiftless slugs who didn't do their duty as citizens, only highlights the complete MORAL BANKRUPTCY of your position. And I don't care if only one person showed up to do their duty and vote - that person's vote should be counted in full.