Follow-up…

I would like to follow up with the previous note I posted on the blog. In that post, I commented the decision made by the Michigan Democratic Party to revote next June. The last decision made on Monday 17th by the Florida Democratic Party is surprising. Indeed, Florida voters will not revote to designate the Democratic delegates. The decision made is as surprising as the reason given; as cited in the New York Times, the Florida Democratic Party chairwoman said that after a survey, “thousands of people responded […] “we spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t.” It is kind of strange to read that one person is speaking out for an entire state. Also, it is kind of dubious to read that voters would not see their vote taken into account.
Once again, I think that the political context, and in particular the political context within the Democratic Party, help explain this decision. Things have changed since the last primary vote in Florida. Senator Clinton had the momentum at that time, then she lost it and now she seems to have it again. Reorganizing a vote in such conditions would probably put voters in a different mindset and give a truncated result. This decision has pointed out that a lot has gone on within the Democratic campaign and that the campaign has lasted too long.

A glance backwards

I got interested in the news ran by CNN; Michigan and Florida are about to vote again in the framework of the Democratic nomination. The article recalls that “the Democratic National Committee did not recognize the results of the January 15 Michigan primary. The DNC had ruled that only four states could hold their contests before February 5, but Michigan wasn't one of those.” As far as I am concerned, I think there are a couple of interesting remarks to make. First, on the one hand, it is sort of surprising that Michigan voted while this vote was obviously in contradiction with the DNC’s rules. On the other hand, it is for me always disrespectful not to take into account the results of a vote. Second, nobody really cared about the DNC’s decision until Hillary Clinton raised the issue. It is because the outcome of the Democratic race is uncertain that people are rethinking of Michigan voters and their voice.
The idea to ask Michigan voters to revote is Hillary Clinton’s. Indeed, she won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote. I got struck by Senator Clinton’s strategy; her strategy is based on the basic assumption that since Michigan voters voted for her two months ago, they will for her next June. I think that she could suffer from her logics. First, the CNN article recalls that last January, “some 40 percent of Democrats in the state filed ballots declaring themselves ‘uncommitted’.” It is far enough to give her opponent, Barack Obama, additional delegates. Second, she seems to forget that in this campaign, things change every week. The situation now is not the same as it was in January and it is not the same as it will be in June. For instance, in January, Sen. Clinton was the frontrunner. Yet, Barack Obama has had the momentum for weeks, becoming the leader of the race. She can change that and she has to if she wants to win. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she should not look backwards.