Long Beach Post | LBPOST.com | News, Politics, and Sports

Home

| 04.18.08|

Would You Change Your Vote?

Last year lawmakers in California changed the date of the Presidential primaries from June to February as they felt it would make our state more relevant in the Presidential race. Apparently the change in date has not had the desired effect and in fact Pennsylvania and Indiana are more relevant this year than California—again. As I have argued as long as California continues to be a winner-take-all state it will continue to have minimal relevance on the national scale; nonetheless the Governor and legislature felt joining the Super Tuesday crowd for the Presidential primaries would have relevance.

Heading into Super Tuesday Hillary Clinton had 232 delegates and Barack Obama had 158 delegates. After Super Tuesday the differential remained the same with Clinton at 818 and Obama at 730 delegates. (Note: this information per CNN website. Given the strange and difficult to decipher rules governing the different primaries and caucuses plus super-delegates for the DNC other sites give slightly different counts.) On Super Tuesday for the three Congressional Districts for Long Beach and surrounding areas (37^th—Laura Richardson; 39^th—Linda Sanchez; 46^th—Dana Rohrabacher) the turnout for the primary was high, according to The Green Papers website 257,497 voters cast ballots in the Democratic Primary. Clinton won 53.8% of these voters and Obama won 42% in the area; the delegate count was closer than the popular vote with Clinton getting seven delegates and Obama six.

Since February 5^th the race has changed dramatically, not because of issues but because of approaches. Read their speeches on issues and it is often very difficult to determine whose speech you are reading. What has become the wedge is the politics of character, experiences, and associations; and most importantly I feel trust. Democrats still waiting to cast their primary votes, be they in Lebanon, Pennsylvania or Warsaw, Indiana, or super-delegates in Denver, appear to be filtering more and more with whom they feel they can trust more before they cast their votes. It has become personal, as evidenced by the campaign ads, the behind the scenes leaks and whispers and the public attacks of the opponent.

My question to the over quarter million Democrats who voted in our region on February 5^th is this: Knowing what you know today about both candidates over ten weeks after you voted in the primary, would you change your vote? If you would change your vote from Clinton to Obama, or vice-versa, why? What issue(s) or information has given you voter remorse? As well, if you would change your vote, do you wish that California had left its primary date in early June to give you more time to make your decision?

Click on comments below and let us know, would you vote differently today than you did on February 5, 2008 and why?

Your thoughts welcome, click here to email me or on “Leave A Comment” below for public response.

Comments

Dennis said:
Anthony: As I put forth in my post last year I am totally for the proportional distribution of electoral votes, and not because of the advantage to the minority party but because it makes California relevant in a national election. Now the state is treated just like the blocks that vote the same way every election: pandered to for elections but ignored when it comes time for policy and benefits. On the side, I find it interesting that Democrats are okay with proportional distribution (or non-distribution in regards to Super-Delegates) of delegates in their primary but not in the general election; seems kind of hypocritical doesn't it? Glad you are sticking with your vote and not going through and voter remorse! Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

drnoe said:
Wow, I clearly thought Dennis asked a very simple question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Douglas Frankenfeld said:
In regards to whether California should have waited until June to have its primary--giving CA a larger share in the outcome of the race-it makes no difference. As to my vote and support, I am steadfast in my support of Barack Obama. Regardless of the voting patterns and issues raised since (whether Hillary ducked from sniper fire in Bosnia, why Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin, or McCain failing to understand the difference between Sunni and Shi'a sects)I can never forgive Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq war authorization vote in October 2002. She failed in leadership and courage by not reading the intelligence reports that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) thus perpetuating the lies of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice. I still denounce Clinton for failing to follow the lead of Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV),Herbert Kohl (D-WI), Bob Graham (D-FL), Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI)who concluded correctly that an attack on Iraq was unwarranted. 4,000 casulties, hundreds of billion of dollars in debt to the People's Republic of China, a destabilized Middle East, and no exit in sight, Iraq proves to be the most misguided and failed foreign policy in American history. The misguided Iraq war policy lies at the feet of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Anthony Duarte said:
Obviously Mr. Smith was a proponent of the failed Presidential Election Reform Act, This was the partisan power grab initiative that intended to alter the way California�s electoral votes for President are distributed. Currently in all states except two, Main and Nebraska, we have a winner take all system. If California would change their way of distributing electoral votes by congressional districts as proposed, there is a possibility that California would award up to the same number of electoral votes as North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah combined to the minority party. Unless ALL states implemented a similar reform, this system would have exclusively benefited the Republican Party. And no, I would not have changed my vote from February.

But your vote? said:
In the meantime, to the question I posed: would you change your vote from what you cast in early February?

Dennis said:
You guys need to read more comprehensively! I "assert" that going into Super Tuesday, and coming out of it, Clinton led Obama in delegates--which she did. Obama passed Clinton February 12th after primaries in District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Go here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/ click on "Democrats" and on next page you can select your date and see who had how many delegates. In the meantime with all this falling you guys are engaged in I will have some seatbelts put on the rockers and helmets for you should you want to visit! Thanks for reading. Go Sagehens.

Douglas Frankenfeld said:
In regards to Darwin Thorpe, Dennis Smith appears to have fallen off his porch at least a second time. He asserts that Clinton leads Obama in the delegate count. I could swear it's the other way around. And don't just blame CNN.

Front Porch Rocker said:
Mr. Thorpe I am very aware of the slice and dice method of apportioning delegates from the primary; what I referred to was the in the general election California is a winner-take-all state. I will fall off the rocker when something more cogent and less predictable is posted by yourself!

Darwin Thorpe said:
Mr Smith has evidently fallen off his front porch once too often. He describes California as a winner-take-all state, when he should know that in the Democratic primary, and delegates were apportioned according to vote! Tsk tsk Dennis; have you healed?

Highlighting Our Community

Archives

| 04.18.08|

Would You Change Your Vote?

Highlighting Our Community

January, 2009