May 6th, 2008
03:31 PM ET
13 years ago

Blitzer: Hold new Florida, Michigan primaries in August?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/05/06/primaries.change/art.voting.flag.in.ap.jpg caption="Some have raised the possibility of adding the Clinton-Obama race to Florida and Michigan's local elections this August."](CNN) - If neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama emerges after the final June 3 primaries with the magic number of 2,025 delegates – a very real possibility if the remaining contests are close – then this presidential nominating battle could indeed continue until the party convention in Denver that begins on Monday, August 25 and continues until Thursday night, August 28.

That would mean potentially a huge credentials fight on the convention floor involving the seating of those disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida, the two states that moved up their primaries against Democratic National Committee rules and were stripped of those delegates as a result.

Party leaders are clearly very worried about alienating Michigan and Florida voters. Both of those states are critical in the November general election against John McCain.

So how do the Democrats a) avoid a convention floor fight, and b) make sure Florida and Michigan voters are not disenfranchised?

Earlier, there had been an effort to get the two states to hold a second round of primaries but that collapsed for a variety of reasons. As a result, the widely-held assumption has been in recent weeks that it is now too late for such a second round of primaries to take place. But is it?

Here's one idea that is now being floated and that potentially could gain some traction though it would require the DNC changing its current rules which state that the primaries and caucuses must be concluded by early June.

Michigan already has a state-wide primary scheduled for August 5 for local and state elections. Florida has a similar state-wide primary scheduled for August 26, the second day of the Democratic convention in Denver. Why not let the two states add a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama election to the ballots for those two primaries?

Adding that election to the already scheduled primaries for those two dates wouldn't add any additional cost to the states.

They would simply have to print a new ballot.

Is this a good idea? Would it reassure voters in Michigan and Florida that they would have a say in determining the Democratic presidential nominee? Should the DNC allow this to occur? What do you think?

Here's one thing to ponder – think how exciting that Democratic convention in Denver would be if on the second day it all came down to the Florida primary.


Filed under: Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (288 Responses)
  1. SC for Hillary

    We need to hold a primary for Fl and Mi right after the June 3 primaries
    or before that day, the reason why we haven't had it is because Obama refused to have it, he would rather disenfranchised those voters, What is he afraid of A SCARED MAN CANNOT WIN., He will lose the general election even if he think it is okay to not count those votes, in fact even if those votes are counted and he is the nominee, The REPUBLICANS will keep the White House, Obama has no substance, he is an empty suit, we need a president that is experience, there is no room for Training Wheels in the White House.

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  2. Joe

    I think this a great plan, it would not cost the tax payer anymore dollars and solve this major problem for the folks in Florida and Michigan. the one thing that will help keep it fair is DO NOT allow any campaigning period in either state, this would keep both canidates from blowing another 10 to 15 million trying to buy everybodies vote.
    Great Idea ever came up with

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  3. Dianne

    Wolf and comany are just stirring up more stupidity. Seriously, these media people are trying to subvert democracy. Is anybody taking them seriously anymore?

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  4. Joyce in Florida

    After attending the recent Washington DNC rally on 4/30/08, I would prefer our votes be counted from the January 29th primary results. If a redo needs to be done for our votes to be counted, I agree that both candidates names should be put on the August 26th ballot. There would be no additional cost (except reprinting of the ballot) and there might even be a better turnout than on January 29th. I also would like to see the candidates campaign here this time. I believe that if this is done for August 26th voting, the results will hopefully show a stronger support for Hillary Clinton and that this contest will be over and Senator Obama will concede. I can only hope that she will be our nominee. I still support her 1000% and look forward to seeing her in the White House. GO HILLARY 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  5. Venus

    This crap regarding MI election in August 2008 has more to do with the Republicans party and not the Democrates!

    Rules are rules and laws are laws!

    What part of english is the Clintons thugs are having trouble with?

    It's time for Hillary to pack it up! Also – We are not going to the convention this year!

    Go Obama!

    Here's the real question – if this freak-show was the other way and Obama was behind – what do you think Hillary and her supporters and thugs think?

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  6. Sharon in Mi..

    This is why people get upset and start writing in caps. Why should the rules be changed for the Clintons to get the results that they want. We started out as a party with an agreed upon set of rules, stick to them. Anything else will be recognized as wresting the nomination from Barack Obama. He has played by the rules and earned it.

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  7. Earl

    I say let the Superdelegates decide this thing.

    Anyways, once Hillary wins Indiana today and comes within 5% in North Carolina, it will strengthen her case even more.

    When she crushes him in West Virginia and Kentucky, well, I just don't see how Obama is even viable anymore.

    Momentum is clearly on Hillary's side and its clear that Obama is not the Knight in Shining Armor many initially thought him to be.

    On the basis of who's more electable NOW, it clearly is Hillary Clinton.

    Actually, the mudslinging has switched sides and now its the Obama people crying foul and flinging insults like accusing Hillary of pandering.

    Oh my how things have changed...

    Yes, SHE can!

    Hillary '08!

    May 6, 2008 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  8. Donna

    No. Just no. If a state decides it's not going to play by the rules and they were told what would happen if they went ahead with their plans, no way on earth should the rules be changed for them.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  9. Anonymous

    As I have said in many many posts you are not fair enough to post "Hillary" Blitzer, "Hillary" Blitzer, "Hillary" Blitzer.How does your garden grow.Laughable journalist ethics.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  10. jim

    Michigan and Florida already voted. Not seating their delegates is a SCAM by the left wing of the party and it will come back to haunt them. This is not Zimbabwe!!! Let the votes count!!!

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  11. Nick

    Let them vote.
    Nobody needs Obamas agreement for this.
    After all this is democracy and everybody's vote should count.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  12. Indiana Dem

    Nice try Wolf but this thing will be over tonight after Clinton loses both states. I am looking forward to watching Wolf and Carville cry.

    CNN, Post this.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  13. Eddie

    I am from Florida and feel if the rules were set and agreed upon by all candidates,including Hillary Clinton,why would we go back and try to change the rules now.In any competition there are rules,and if you brake them you taint the end result,so florida and Michigan are done for this primary season,get over it.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  14. Tex Dem

    Can you imagine the nightmare scenario of leaving it all up to Florida, when the dimwits in that state couldn't get it right in 2000? What makes anyone think they'd get it right this time?

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  15. Manu

    Why does Wolf so concerned about FL and MI. It is for a long time he started talking about them. Is he a supporter of one of the candidates? Hey, I am not calling a name here.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  16. Rob -BC Canada

    As I have said in many many posts you are not fair enough to post "Hillary" Blitzer, "Hillary" Blitzer, "Hillary" Blitzer.How does your garden grow.Laughable journalist ethics.

    May 6, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  17. Tom

    No.

    May 6, 2008 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  18. Kevin

    Would someone fire Wolf Blitzer already? His spaceship is obviously not returning to this planet anytime soon.

    May 6, 2008 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  19. Berkeley Guy

    Sure. Anything so that the voters of both states can vote and have their votes count.

    May 6, 2008 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  20. New Democrat

    This is an interesting idea, however, I am very afraid that waiting until August to select the nominee will not provide enough time prior to the general election and will thereby give the Republicans a real advantage.

    May 6, 2008 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  21. Sam

    Rules are rules,

    Michigan and Florida wanted to be slick and try and make their vote count ahead of others, and they failed.

    Now you want to give them the ultimate decision? That's a reward, not a penalty for breaking the rules. If Michigan and Florida were to succeed and get a revote after all of the other primaries, then that tells all of the other 48 states that if you break the rules, you'll get an even better reward in the end.

    May 6, 2008 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  22. Kel in Auburn, AL

    The fact of the matter is that both states broke DNC rules and they knew it. Beforehand. The candidates took their name off of the ballots, except for Clinton in Michigan and Obama & Clinton in Florida. Obama left it up the states to decide, and each state said no.

    Obama abides by the rules. The Clintons just think that doesn't apply to them.

    This wasn't an issue until Hillary started losing. Stop throwing her lifelines and let her lose fair and square.

    May 6, 2008 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  23. Andy

    What they should do is award 1 delegate to Hillary for Florida and 1 delegate to Hillary for Michigan. This accomplishes a couple of things. 1) The delegates get seated. 2) Both states get punished.

    On the other hand, If MIchigan and Florida get to revote, the DNC should pay for Edwards to reenter the race since he would still have been a candidate. And whatever his vote total and apportioned delegates are, he can then give them to whomever he wants.

    Case closed.

    May 6, 2008 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  24. Dilly Wa

    What about the rest of the states who waited their turn. MI and Fl were not put in front because the DNC wanted lower-income and minorities to have a fair say. It is Clinton who wants to cherry pick voters. Splint it 50/50 and get on with it or we'll lose to MCCain. August is way too late! We all need to remember what happened this time and be sure the DNC fixes the system before the next election.

    May 6, 2008 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  25. @americans

    WOLF, WE GET IT!...YOU ARE DIGGING DEEP TO SEE IF HILLARY CAN STILL PULL THIS OFF!

    GAME OVER – OBAMA WON, GET IT?!

    WATCH YOUR BACK WOLF; YOU MIGHT BE SHOWN THE DOOR SOON WITH YOUR BIASED REPORTING!!!!

    May 6, 2008 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12