The National Democratic Committee created the fiasco it’s now confronted with regarding Florida and Michigan — by deciding that if they moved up their primaries to January, their votes wouldn’t count. It’s unbelievable that DNC Chairman Howard Dean would now refuse to enable those states to revote so their votes could count, especially by pleading poverty in a year of record-breaking Democratic fundraising. “We can’t afford to do that,†Dean said on CBS’ “The Early Show†of party-sponsored revotes. “That’s not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race.†Nonsense. Other states should join Florida and Michigan in demanding the party do the right thing and rerun the primaries.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
122 Comments
Can’t keep their own budget and the Democratic Party wants to run the Country?
tsk tsk
(chortles)
Excellent point Reg. As Howard Dean himself would say, “Rrrrraaaaaaaaarrrrrrrwwwwwwwwhhhhhh!”
Though I will ask, “since when has a vote ever counted on Florida”? Ask those folks from 2000.
Rhonda
Waaaaahaaaahahahahaaaaa….
whiner
Would they be shouting this loud if it was Obama who stood to gain votes and not Hillary?
Surgery on right hand so won’t be blogging much until cast comes off. Not very good/fast with hunt and peck.
Newsflash — Hillary gives great phone. Details on my blog.
“Not very good/fast with hunt and peck.”
Bibical method “Seek and you shall find.”
Rhonda!
You haven’t exposed your right wing in a while.
Ewww it’s put on weight!
Michigan and Florida stand to have a lot of political power now. Too, the investment in new primaries would see a substantial return for them.
New primaries should be state financed.
Now I know it is your game to sap funds from the Democratic party, but the fact is? Florida and Michigan did not play by the rules. SO, they should pay for the new primaries.
“…by deciding that if they moved up their primaries to January, their votes wouldn’t count.”
The states knew the rules, they decided to move the primaries up anyway. BooHoo. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
And you people want to be by latex salesman.
I don’t think so. Not yours!
“‘We can’t afford to do that,’ Dean said on CBS’ ‘The Early Show’ of party-sponsored revotes. ‘That’s not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race.’ Nonsense. Other states should join Florida and Michigan in demanding the party do the right thing and rerun the primaries.”
It’s not “nonsense”. Howard Dean is right, particularly on the point I italicized. What Michigan and Florida are demanding is that the Democractic party pay for the willful and intentional mistakes that these states made. They want the Democratic party to pay for the primaries (rather than the states themselves, which is how the other primaries are done). I could not believe my ears when I heard state politicians from Florida and Michigan offer a DNC sponsored second primary as the “compromise” for running their primaries early.
Logical consequences folks. The states were warned what would happen if they moved their primaries up, they did it anyway, now they are complaining that their votes are not being counted and so are offering the “compromise” of “well, we’ll have another primary if you pay for it”. Talk about reinforcing states for bad behavior. Tell me another one.
“rather than the states themselves, which is how the other primaries are done”
I realize that it’s a little more complicated than that, but the gist is still correct.
What JR said.
Factually, the lead-in is inaccurate: it was the state parties who decided when to hold their primaries, in full awareness of likely sanctions by the rules committee. They tried to jockey for position in the primary season, and the national party retaliated. It is also inaccurate to say that Chairman Dean is “refusing to enable” the states to hold revotes; rather, he’s refusing to pay for it. Seriously. Since when is it the DNC’s job to pay for state primaries?
I do think a re-vote would be the best idea. But it’s also true that a state primary costs about $20 million to hold. Where’s that money going to come from? If Hillary wants a revote, let her and Barack Obama pay for it. THEY have the money.
Heckler,
Typical for one of your ilk to call someone a “whiner” who wants to see all the votes counted. Hate democracy much, Heckler?
No “do-overs”. I didn’t get another vote on the arena.
A little off topic. Factcheck weighs in:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/misleading_ads_in_texas.html
Note the last one.
This is a website everyone, right and left, but particularly the majority of people in between, needs to be aware of as campaigns make claims about their opponents and issues. It’s a non-partisan bullsh*t fighter.
“It is also inaccurate to say that Chairman Dean is ‘refusing to enable’ the states to hold revotes; rather, he’s refusing to pay for it.”
Nice catch.
Rhonda, you do your own factcheck much?
If we were running our elections the way the Constitution says we should, this wouldn’t matter at all.
Remember? On Nov 4, the states choose Electors, and 6 weeks later, the _Electors_ are the ones who pick the President. There’s nothing in there that limits the Electors’ choices to Republicrats or Democans, nothing about state primaries, none of this bull**** about “faithless electors”. No, there’s just the assumption that the Electors will take seriously their jobs as duly elected representatives of the people and thoughtfully select the most qualified person for the job of President.
And if any part of the Constitution needs changing, it’s that one.
It continues to amaze me that rules are made, decisions made on the rules, then when the decisions based on the old rules proves wrong, ineffective, or just a loser, they want to go back and change the original rules.
Both Florida and Michigan took the chance that the early impact in the race was more important than seating the delegates. They knew this up front.
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill?
“Both Florida and Michigan took the chance that the early impact in the race was more important than seating the delegates. They knew this up front.
“Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill?”
Because it’s the states’ mistake, so it should be the states’ job to fix it. Whether that passes muster with the taxpayers of those states is another issue entirely.
Don’t we tell our kids that there are consequences for their actions??? Why should that not carry over into our, supposed, “adulthood?” These states are simply facing consequences. Why is this such a big deal, now???
MI and FL were part of the process that established the rules. Now they want to change the rules. I have to side with Dean (at least in part) on this.
That said, I’d still like to see a compromise worked out along the lines I have said before: a half-vote for the slate chosen in January and a half-vote for a new slate to be determined by caucus.
So Ben who would get the “None of the Above” delegates in MI.
God this is fun to watch!!!
Hillary (bless her black statist heart) want to change the rules in the middle of the game. I hope she gets to, and takes the nomination Obama’s earned away from him.
What do you think that will do to the black vote in November?
C’mon brokered convention!
Hillary is saying she will not accept a re-vote.
GMC70,
Given that “statism” is the monster always lurking under your bed, consistency would seem to demand equal reservations on your part about John McCain. After all, what else should we make of his ring-kissing of the All-Time Champion of the enlarged and increased powers of the Federal surveillance state: George W. Bush?
Given McCain’s toadying up to the All-Time Champion of the enlarged Federal State,
CF –
McCain was not my first choice. But it is what it is.
“”Don’t we tell our kids that there are consequences for their actions??? Why should that not carry over into our, supposed, “adulthood?” These states are simply facing consequences. Why is this such a big deal, now???”"
Liz, obvioulsy theses are people that were not
raised that way, and that is shameful. That is why are nation is suffering in many areas of life. It all goes back to paying the consequences (paying the piper, sleeping in the bed you made…). They don’t think they should have to do it! Just like people who get loans above their heads and now want the govt. to bail them out! It is an epidemic.
I’m glad to see that almost everyone on here is as outraged as I am that these two states knew the rules, broke the rules while knowing the consequences, and now are crying that their delegates don’t count. I really don’t like how Rhonda spinned this. The voters of MI and FL should NOT be screaming at Dean, they should be screaming at their state governors.
And Ben, I don’t understand how any of the January vote could be used. With Obama not on the MI ballot, and no one campaigning in either state, it’s a skewed result.
Florida and Michigan did not play by the rules. SO, they should pay for the new primaries.
Amen, JR.
“Hillary is saying she will not accept a re-vote.”
Not true. At least any more. Clinton is actually expressing interest in it, and Obama says he will accept whatever rules the DNC comes up with.
“Popcorn, get your popcorn!”
“Peaunuts, get your peanuts!”
“Lemonade, lemonade, lemonade!”
I always love it when the circus comes to town.
SO, they [the state}should pay for the new primaries.
Now why should the taxpayers pay for the democrats screwup? Great example of typical lib thinking.
So tell me again how republicans STOLE the election
and democrats are pure in heart.
:-)
It seems to me that both parties’ primaries were moved up; the GOP accepted the change, the Democrats did not. To say the taxpayers of the states should be required to pay for a new primary when one party accepted the change seems not fair to me.
I don’t know about Michigan. But I can tell you what the problem is Florida is.
They’ve got a Republican governor who is rubbing his hands with glee at muddying up the Democratic nomination process.
I heard him yesterday on CNN. Oh he acknowledges that a new primary would bring ad revenue, and press attention etc. etc. to Florida. But the DNC should pay for that.
Unh uh.
Florida gets to pay for this. And Florida will get the return on the investment. IF the GOP will get out of the way of the Democratic nomination process.
” IF the GOP will get out of the way ”
O.K. JR, (bowing and extending my arm to go past).
Republicans are out of your way! Step right up to the ticket counter!!
But me thinks they will make you pay.
Well it doesn’t seem much fair to me that the whole country has had to live these last 7 years with the consequences of stupidity, and Republican election fraud in Florida either.
Seems to me Florida could use a little extra light shined on it before the next election.
“…that the whole country has had to live these last 7 years with the consequences of stupidity, and Republican election fraud in Florida either.”
And who was it that said the Florida Primary vote would not count?
Those Repubicans again, right?
“It seems to me that both parties’ primaries were moved up; the GOP accepted the change, the Democrats did not. To say the taxpayers of the states should be required to pay for a new primary when one party accepted the change seems not fair to me.”
The Democratic Party was clear it would not accept the change. The states went on with the primary anyway. I am not arguing that the taxpayers should be “required” to pay for re-votes, unless the states’ decide to have the revotes. Then the taxpayers can hold their officeholders responsible if they don’t agree. But it is certainly in my view specious to request that the Democratic party be financially responsible for holding revotes. They should not be held responsible for what the GOP did.
All that being said, the Democrats are once again in a precarious situation. Without a clear winner or a candidate’s willingness to convincingly step aside, they could be in big trouble in the general election. This reality may influence the DNC to change their position. But, I think Dean is right on this.
CF
Waaaaahaaaahahahahaaaaa….
That’s pretty clear to me. Anything you read into it is a product of your own dried up gray matter.
JR
“IF the GOP will get out of the way of the Democratic nomination process.”
Always trying to shift blame to make your party look less feckless. Shades of the butterfly ballot.
Go on with your bad self.
GMC
Spot on old chap.
teehee.
Just as a comparison, you all remember what happened in Kansas? Was it the state that refused to fund a regular primary?
Why we all stood in lines and confusing to caucus?
What was it, 1 million dollars?
Can’t wait for the riot cops with water cannons at the Democrat convention.
teehee.
I’ll tell you what the DNC should do.
They should spend a few hundred thousand dollars on an an ad buy. They should tell the people of Florida that Republicans want to prevent the people of Florida from the revenue and political influence to be gained from another primary AND want their votes not to count.
Republicans are pretty consistent in trying to deny votes anywhere they can. Why? Why do the hate the democratic process?
But, jr, that would be a lie. Why do you hate the truth?
“Now why should the taxpayers pay for the democrats screwup?”
My understanding is that in Florida, the gop dominated legislature forced the early primary, knowing the RNC would be ok with it and the DNC would not. Political games cost Floridians their primary votes. They should throw the republican bums out of office. That’s where the blame lies.
JR
Can’t stand to put the blame where it belongs can you. The Florida Democrat party elders eff’d up. So JR blames Republicans, not the idiots who caused the problem. Typical.
kfg
“the gop dominated legislature forced the early primary, knowing the RNC would be ok with it and the DNC would not.”
link?
This isn’t the first time we see Republicans trying to get in the way of voting.
Why don’t you want the people of Florida to have a voice Heckler? Who else would you like to deny the vote?
“Republicans are pretty consistent in trying to deny votes anywhere they can.”
JR would you like me to post a few dozen links to a democrat organization called ACORN? Easy to do. Just google ACORN VOTER FRAUD CONVICTIONS……
Here ya go heckie
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/State/Dems__primary_may_not.shtml
Google Florida primary + republican + legislature and see how many hits you get that back up my statement. This is just one.
ksfg, that is my understanding about what happened in FL. I’ve got to say that part of any “fault” here lies with the DNC. Yes, each party has the right to determine its rules, how its delegates will be selected, all that; no question. But, all in all, if the legislature approved an early primary, should not the parties (both of them) be bound thereby as to the date, IF the parties wish to utilize the primary process? That’s why I’m having an issue with the “states pay for a revote” stance.
In the case of MI and FL, the DNC was against the respective primary dates being moved to an earlier time. The legislatures of each state voted to move the dates up, which, IMO, is the right of each legislature to so do. I know this was raw power politics at work, at least in FL; but given the fact that it is the right of each state to either hold a primary or not, and if so, to determine the date therefor, if the Democrats in FL and MI couldn’t win the battle on the primary date in each state, then to me the DNC would need either to accept the change, or arrive at an alternative way to select delegates to the convention from these states, such alternative to be in place on or before the date of the primary. Just my 2 cents.
#
Vaughn Tolle
Posted March 7, 2008 at 9:38 am | Permalink
It seems to me that both parties’ primaries were moved up; the GOP accepted the change, the Democrats did not. To say the taxpayers of the states should be required to pay for a new primary when one party accepted the change seems not fair to me.
—————————-
I guess someone forgot to tell the DNC, that they were the party of “change.”
:D
kfg
From your link-”Florida Democrats had no power to stop the early presidential primary date in the Republican-controlled Legislature AND MOST SUPPORTED THE IDEA THROUGH MOST OF THE SESSION.”
Poor powerless Democrat party. Blame the Republicans even if you did support the idea.
I love it! The Democrats are blaming THEIR mess on the Republicans!
God does your party EVER take responsibility for anything?
If you Democrats are so wimpy that the Republicans are always pushing you around, why in the H would you belong to the Party of Wimps and Crybabies?
Heckler, is there some part of “most” that you dont understand?
When it became clear what the consequenses would be, the democrats in the Florida legislature did NOT support the early primary. And they were POWERLESS, according to the article, to stop it.
VT, I get your points. You gotta wonder though, when the “early” moves will stop. I see primaries in December, etc. if someone doesnt say “enough”! I never said the democrats in Florida were blameless, but if you wanted to PISS OFF a major swing state, wouldnt this be a great way for the republs to do it? Take action that they KNOW will disenfranchise the state and taint the primary results?
I’m just saying…
JR
“Why don’t you want the people of Florida to have a voice Heckler? Who else would you like to deny the vote?”
Have I said anything to that effect JR? Show me where.
I’m just laughing at your party. BUTTERFLY BALLOT!!!!
…and as typical for the cons, they ask for a link, and then one’s too many and a hundred arent enough. I almost didnt post a link because I knew this would happen.
I mean, who ya gonna believe? The republican shills or those lyin’ eyes of yours?
Yep, ksfg, that’s what I meant by “raw power politics”.
As for heckler and max, I just shake my head.
Morons. Or as they say on the “lib” sites, “morans”
ksag – actually the GOP also penalized MI and FL – but only half-way. However in their case it became a moot point.
kfg
teehee
The Democrat party could have made an exception to it’s rules to moot the actions of those RASCALLY REPUBLICANS but they chose not to.
kfg
and Jesus chuckled
“When it became clear what the consequenses would be, the democrats in the Florida legislature did NOT support the early primary”
Yeah, wait until the consequences roll in and then oppose the complicit actions that caused them.
The Democratic party made their own bed, now they must sleep in it.
Let’s see. According the the line.. The Mean Republicans singlehandledly screwed up the Democrat primary, on purpose, by forcing the Democrats to hold their primary early in violation of DNC party rules. The DNC, apparently, held those who were unable to have a say, who had nothing to do with the outcome–remember it was the Republicans who set the date , responsible for actions they didn;t commit. Priceless.
The reaction world wide to Howard Dean’s assessment and action on the changing the primaries. :D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y969U-ELtCU&feature=related
Say isn’t about time for the libs to take this to court?
No Heckler, the Democrats could not have changed their own rules!
Don’t you understand, the Democrats are POWERLESS!
AmWay has the solution. The Democrats should sue the Republicans over this. That would be fun to watch.
“Popcorn!” “Get your peanuts!”
ROTFLMAO!!!
Democrats can’t squeeze one out with having a republican holding their hands.
“‘“When it became clear what the consequenses would be, the democrats in the Florida legislature did NOT support the early primary’”
“Yeah, wait until the consequences roll in and then oppose the complicit actions that caused them.
“The Democratic party made their own bed, now they must sleep in it.”
Reading comprehension problem 101. Consequences would be indicates that the consequences hadn’t happened yet. Ksfarmgrrl is indicating that the Republican led Florida legislature imposed this consequence on the Florida Democratic party even after the Florida Democrats were aware of it and tried to avoid it. I am not sure that the Florida Republicans were aware of how long and contested the Democratic primary would be (on the other hand, given the Democratic methodology of proportional delegates rather than winner take all, and history, the greater liklihood of a long Democratic primary was predictable), but certainly screwing with one party’s elections has been a hallmark of party politics (look at the shameless gerrymandering that took place in T e x a s and California-the former was particularly egregious).
Maybe the DNC is being a little hard headed, but the basic principle stands for me. The DNC should not have to pay the penalty for a decision a state made. That being the case, I think the DNC is going to have to figure something out and do it quickly. Right now, since I believe that it is very important to have a Democratic president (if for no other reason that judicial balance, but also because the current Republican occupant is such an unmitigated disaster), I have to say I am pessimistic.
And if they do re-vote in FL and MI, will Hillary change her mind again and agree to NOT count the FL and MI votes?
I mean, it’s possible you know, that if Hillary isn’t the only name on the ballot in MI for the 2nd vote, Barrack might win there.
Course if Hillary loses the 2nd election in Florida, she could blame those hangin Chads and file a lawsuit. She could even argue for a 3rd election. It might take 3 times for those stupid Florida people to get it right!
ksagnostic says:
“Consequences would be indicates that the consequences hadn’t happened yet”
and then contradicts himself:
“I am not sure that the Florida Republicans were aware of how long and contested the Democratic primary would be”
The “long and contested” Democratic primary HAS happened. Let me check, today’s date is March 7th and Democrats right now on this blog are lamenting a decision that was made by the DNC and blaming it on the Republicans because the consequence of there being a “long and contested” Democratic primary has become evident.
The decision to deny FL and MI primary results was made many months prior to March 7th (today’s date).
Again I write:
Yeah, wait until the consequences roll in and then oppose the complicit actions that caused them.
ksagnostic,
How did it become clear what the consequences would be before the consequences actually happened? How did the Florida Democrats know that there would be a long and contested nomination fight?
The Answer? They didn’t, neither did the Republicans
It wasn’t a big deal until the long and contested nomination fight became a reality and portends to threaten the Democratic party’s chances in November.
Given that there is no re-election in FL or MI, what will be the process of seating those delegates? Is there reason to believe this alternative will be inadequate?
The Democrats never want to play by the rules.
The states were clearly told not to move their primaries.
Now all of a sudden they are crying about the consequences.
Typical liberals. Always expecting special treatment and never wanting to own up to the consequences of their actions.
Boo Hoo.
Sorry I don’t have time to read thru this whole thread, but I read somewhere that the Republicans had something to do with moving up the primaries too, and now the democrats are being penalized by it.
Is that true?
And now the governor of Fla *Jeb is still gov right?* refuses to fund a new election.
So if this is true, you can see the outrage by the voters of the state of Fla. The republicans did not get penalized for having their primary early.
Why does Fla have to have such issues with their elections? EVERY DARN TIME. And you know that state is run mostly by republicns. I think we need to send an election oversight to Fla to seriously look at what they’re doing.
Political_mama, Jeb is not the governor of FL; Crist (sp?) is the current governor, being mentioned by talking heads as a potential VP candidate.
Political Mama,
The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
The state PARTY chair would not back down. It was your Democratic Party in Florida which moved their primary and they had 30 days to back down.
No one made this a problem but your fellow Democrats.
Don’t sit here trying to blame the Governor or the Republicans now.
It is like Politcal Mama was trying to get every think wrong she possibly could in her statement.
For heavens sake, try doing a google search on the issue before coming in here and blaming the Republicans for your problems.
PM, the Republicans in FL did get penalized.
Dear cons,
It’s not your party.
These are not your candidates.
Unless there is something I am missing, you are not taxpayers in Florida or Michigan.
Conclusion? You’ve no dog in this fight.
Thanks.
Let the super-delegates from Michigan and Florida decide – end of story.
Next question?
Does Florida have enough time to educate their voters to a new election would make a difference?
A primary is not simply a democratic or republican primary. A primary covers both parties. The republicans had to change dates just as the democrats did.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/04/florida_moves_primary_right_behind_nh_vote/
What penalty did the republicans face for moving the primary too?
Seems to me that the REPUBLICANS probably control what happens in Fla as much as Republicans control what happens in Kansas.
So apparently I’m right Nathan. I just wasn’t sure because I was only half listening when it was on the tv.
Nathan, it was the FL legislature that moved the date of the primary; neither party in and of itself did, as they would not have the power to so do. And, as I’m sure you know, the FL legislature is majority Republican.
Yes, the GOP penalized by only seating one-half the delegates as I recall. Of small moment, given how things have subsequently occurred.
The DNC took a stand; it has, due to subsequent events, proven to be a bad one.
“Reading comprehension problem 101. Consequences would be indicates that the consequences hadn’t happened yet. Ksfarmgrrl is indicating that the Republican led Florida legislature imposed this consequence on the Florida Democratic party even after the Florida Democrats were aware of it and tried to avoid it.”
Verses:
“I am not sure that the Florida Republicans were aware of how long and contested the Democratic primary would be (on the other hand, given the Democratic methodology of proportional delegates rather than winner take all, and history, the greater liklihood of a long Democratic primary was predictable), but certainly screwing with one party’s elections has been a hallmark of party politics (look at the shameless gerrymandering that took place in T e x a s and California-the former was particularly egregious).”
Nope, no contradiction there. IF the Democrats in the legislature resisted trying to move the primary because they were aware that the DNC’s punishment would be more severe, and the Republicans pushed it forward anyway, then Ksfarmgrrl’s (and Vaughn’s) point stands. Nor I have not contradicted myself (the fact that the current impasse for the Democrats was not an obvious consequence at the time is immaterial, I could see the Republicans still moving foward with movng the primaries if it results in the Democrats in their state being sanctioned. Even though the impasse consequence was not anticipated, the DNC’s penalties were. If those penalities were sufficient to get the Democrats in the legislature to change their mind and oppose moving the primaries, then the known consequences were a sufficient deterrant and were a sufficient incentive for the legislative Republicans.
I have not followed up on this to see how the legislature voted (if most of the Democrats voted to move up the primary, the argument against the state’s Republican legislators is moot), nor do I claim to be aware of the influence the Florida Democrats had on the decision or what their options were. But the fact remains, rfl misread and evidently continues to misread ksfarmgrrl’s point.
Not a problem RS. Just make the Voter “tickets” the same as Lotto tickets, as the Democratic Party Voters will become instant experts as they know how to “pick six” and mark all the right boxes.
(chortles)
The house vote for FLA was 117 (or so) to nothing.
ALL parties were on board with this move, although republicans certainly had less to lose in doing it.
#
Vaughn Tolle
Posted March 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
Nathan, it was the FL legislature that moved the date of the primary; neither party in and of itself did, as they would not have the power to so do. And, as I’m sure you know, the FL legislature is majority Republican.
Yes, the GOP penalized by only seating one-half the delegates as I recall. Of small moment, given how things have subsequently occurred.
The DNC took a stand; it has, due to subsequent events, proven to be a bad one.
————————-
No doubt a vast Right Wing conspiracy. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269898,00.html
It looks moot to me.
And yes, I know it’s from faux, but I am relatively sure they got the legislative vote (unanimous) right.
Yep, ksagnostic, it looks moot to me as well, even though the FL senate vote isn’t given. Pays your money, takes your chances seems to apply here.
My bad on that one…
I was reading where the state Democratic Party Chair was refusing to back down to the DNC…
I will revise my statement this:
Political Mama,
The Democrats fully supported the move of the Primary as well. You can hardly blame this on the Republicans.
Your party headquarters, the DNC, were the ones who chose the punishment and warned them.
Now you are living with the consequences. Of course now that it is your Candidate that is being effected, all of a sudden you care.
I wonder if it were Obama who was trailing in the votes and those states would help him how quick you would be to want to give those states another chance…
Hey, Rhonda, let the Dems do what they think as right.
You can worry about your people–the RepubliCONs.
1. If the RepubliCONs had a system like the Dems, Romney and Huckabee would be hard on McCain’s tail. But since they have the inherently undemocratic “winner-takes-all” delegates system, they simply appoint someone the winner, voters be damned.
2. If Michigan and Florida had been allowed to move their primaries, they system would have fallen into total chaos.
I agree that the existing system is far from ideal. But at least it’s some kind of system as opposed to what it would have been if states can just decide on their own when to hold their primaries or caucuses.
Michigan and Florida refused to play by the rules. Now they get watch the people who do play by the rules.
Final results have been announced in California.
Turns out that Obama gets four more votes and Hillary gets four less than was reported earlier.
Heh, her net gain after Ohio et al. was just wiped out.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/dem/59.htm
Michigan and Florida DON’T MATTER. None of the remaining states matter. Hillary is not going to get 68-70 percent of remaining delegates to tie Obama.
It can’t happen.
Capn, in fact, states can decide when to hold primaries; it is up to each state and the legislative bodies to set the date.
It is, however, up to each of the political parties to determine the consequences, if any, which flow from these decisions.
So long as holding an early primary is seen as an “eco-devo” benefit (forget all that about “having a voice”; rings a bit hollow to me), there will be states at least considering moving the dates. A natural consequence, IMHO, in the ever-lengthening run for the presidency.
CapnAmerica,
You must be joking.
The winner take all system is not even close to being as undemocratic as having a bunch of “super delegates” who can vote however they want even going against the popular vote.
J R
Posted March 7, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
Dear cons,
It’s not your party.
These are not your candidates.
Unless there is something I am missing, you are not taxpayers in Florida or Michigan.
Conclusion? You’ve no dog in this fight.
Thanks.
===========================================
JR pays a lot of taxes in FL and MI.
As to who the next POTUS is, we all have a dog in that fight.
It’s my party and I can
Do what I want to!
Do what I want to!
Do what I want to!
Do what I want to!
Heelary and Obama agreed to the DNC rules to not count the FL and MI primaries.
It’s natural for the loser to now cry and bitch and moan and complain that FL and MI votes are not being counted.
But the bitch agreed to those terms and now she changes her lil mind.
Too bad Hellary.
Sore Loser.
“IF the Democrats in the legislature resisted trying to move the primary because they were aware that the DNC’s punishment would be more severe, and the Republicans pushed it forward anyway…”
-ksagnostic
One big IF which doesn’t stand up to the facts.
The Florida Dem’s were complicit with the Florida GOP’ers the whole way.
Some quotes from Democrats From fg’s link:
“If I’m a presidential candidate, I’ve got to store my chestnuts for the 5th of February, and I’m better off saying, ‘I’m not going to play in a state like Florida that’s just a beauty contest. I’m better off having my momentum on Feb. 5 carry me on, ‘ ” said Allan Katz, a Democratic fundraiser in Tallahassee and Barack Obama supporter.
“Even without the delegates attached, if you win the Florida primary, that’s going to be a huge, ” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Weston. “I can’t imagine the presidential candidates not crossing the Florida border for a Jan. 29 election as the result of some arcane party rules designed to protect states that are not as diverse as Florida.”
In other words, The Democrats supported a Feb 5th primary no matter what the penalty was going to be.
Even though the Democrats in the legisature are a minorty they still agreed with the Republicans to have their primaries on Feb 5C. They BOTH simply wanted the notoriety of having their primary early because ironically they thought that was the best way to influence the nomination. They did not give a rat’s *ss about the national pary.
Bad idea, so I guess we blame the Republicans and move on.
Right, I understand that, VT.
But I also understand the second part of your statement which was what I was emphasizing.
Every state has the legal right to vote when they want to hold their primary/caucus. But without the oversight of the national party, every state would try to go first or at least very early.
That’s what the DNC could not allow, and justifiably refused to allow.
*****
As for the charge that the Republican Florida Leg. is to blame by forcing this over Democratic objections, wasn’t the vote unanimously in favor?
The Dems. were on-board with this disruptive scheme too.
They made their bed, now they can lie in it. And if the Mich & Fla voters are p!ssed off, they need look no farther than their idiot state legislators . . .
“As to who the next POTUS is, we all have a dog in that fight.”
Thanks for admitting that the Democratic candidate is going to kick McCain’s ass, Max . . .
CapnAmerica,
You must be ignoring those polls you Democrats love to quote.
They show McCain tied, close, or ouright winning in a matchup against Obama or Hilary.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
03/07/08
McCain 46%
Hilary 46%
03/07/08
McCain 46%
Obama 45%
Keep dreaming about how easily you have this election won.
Political parties are private entities. They can make up rules as they wish. In Texas the state party invented the “primacaucus”, used nowhere else. Kansas and many other states opted for caucuses instead of primaries, to save money.
It’s statistically clear-cut that caucuses draw fewer, more intensely-partisan voters than primaries, which is to say these two processes generate different delegate-apportionment outcomes. If caucuses generate results that are less-representative of the general-populace’s opinions than primaries, is this “fair”?
Some state parties allow independents and opposing-party-registered voters to vote, others require same-party registration. Some states in the latter category require registration in advance of the primary or caucus, others allow instant party-switching at the caucus or polling place.
In this context, it seemed reasonable to the Florida Democratic Committee to agree to the Republicans’ proposal to hold an early primary. Essentially the state legislature did not necessarily have to schedule and fund any primary, unless Florida had a statute requiring such.
Whether once authorized by the legislature, the early primary date could have been subject to litigation by the FDC, to in essence either force rescheduling of a single primary to a later date, or funding of two primaries on different dates, is beyond my reckoning, but if holding a primary election per se is not statorily required for presidential delegates’ election, then maybe the Florida Dems had no recourse, other than a self-organized and funded caucus or primary after the New Hampshire primary.
At the national level, there are strategic reasons for maintaining order in the scheduling. Should Florida have had the “right” to jump ahead of larger-population California and Texas, that followed the DNC rules? What made Michigan “more important” in the matter of influencing national perceptions, and even shaping the candidate pool (Hillary is the winner, why don’t the rest of you drop out?), than its neighbors Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, and nearly-neighboring Illinois and Minnesota?
The DNC clearly allows various delegate-selection mechanisms for states to devise. But it nevertheless imposed a scheduling restriction, and as a private organization, it is under no legal compulsion to seat MI and FL delegates per the January results.
Why didn’t Hillary withdraw her name from the Michigan ballot, as every other serious candidate did? (Kucinich stayed on, but he was just playing the court jester.) She (and Bill) wanted the advantage of having no competition (write-in names weren’t even credited, but were all counted as “other”.)
So, voters for Obama (and Edwards, et al.) were disenfranchised.
In Florida, the Democratic participation rate was anomalously much lower than statistically established for rules-following states, which is to say that it strongly appears, according to the statisticians, that a lot of Florida Democrats stayed home, thinking that their votes wouldn’t count.
It has been said that because neither candidate campaigned (with a few “seepage” ad exceptions) it was “fair”. It was NOT fair. Obama’s singular strength was local organization and inspiring speeches, which were disabled. Hillary could have given yawner speeches to groups of 2000 people, while Obama was attracting and inspiring 10,000 people per appearance. She was using previously-established “name recognition”. She (and Bill) knew that an early primary with no local campaigning was strongly to her advantage, and strongly to Obama’s disadvantage.
Hillary’s wins generated buzz nationally that she was the leading Dem candidate. These wins probably influenced Super Tuesday outcomes more towards her favor than if the unauthorized primaries had not occurred. Now she wants both that benefit, and the seating of disallowed delegates–a twofer for rule-breaking.
This is one of many reasons people don’t like the Clintons, they only act in their own interests. (e.g. during their first reign, Dems lost their majorities in both the House and Senate, and the party was crippled in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, all because Bill put his sexual appetite ahead of his duty to his party, and his nation.)
“One big IF which doesn’t stand up to the facts.”
That indeed appears to be the case, hence my use of the qualifier “IF” in capital letters. The Florida vote was unanimous. Also, hence, my follow-up post when I did look into the report where I said the argument against the state’s Republican legislators was indeed moot.
The Florida Democrats’ argument would be much stronger if moving the date of the primary had been a strict or even evident party line vote. Then, I would even be inclined to agree that the DNC should step in and pay for a revote. As it stands, however, that is not what happened and I still find myself agreeing with Dean.
Nathan, in my view you are often wrong on this blog, even outrageously wrong (note recent posts in the global cooling thread).
All that being said…
“Keep dreaming about how easily you have this election won.”
You aren’t wrong about this. The Republicans nominated their strongest general election candidate and he has a head start. The Democrats have two strong candidates, but the problem is…they have TWO strong candidates (the absolute best candidate would have been Al Gore, because he would have reminded all the foul weather voters of what could and should have been).
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Try looking at more than one poll Nathan, many of these show Hillary just slightly behind Obama in who would beat McCain.
BTW, did anyone point out to Rhonda all the money raised has gone directly to Hillary or directly to Obama’s personal campaign funds…NOT to the DNC.
The DNC has to raise its own monies.
“You must be ignoring those polls you Democrats love to quote.”
Nathan, there are a lot of different types of polls and it shames me that after 16 years of education, you don’t yet understand the difference.
This kind of poll has very little relevance for the outcome of the election in November because
1. the time factor is too great.
2. it cannot measure who will actually vote.
3. it uses a popular vote measure when the winner is decided by the electoral college.
4. it is limited by how the poll was conducted (land line phones?)
5. it is limited by how the questions were asked.
6. it is limited by WHO asked the questions.
But it was a nice try. Don’t forget to collect your consolation prize on the way out.
Maybe Florida should request donations to fund another primary!
Also, Nathan, that same poll has Obama beating McCain just a few weeks ago. And then McCain beating Obama before that and Obama beating McCain before that . . .
I’m just loving this! It is so entertaining and typical.
By starting their campaigning so early it just provides us that much more time for the Democrats to entertain us all with their typical three ring circus. It should get nothing but even crazier and more nonsensical from here on.
And these geniuses think they can run a country.
I think it a hoot that after campaigning for the Ohio vote and denouncing NAFTA in the process Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff claims Clinton gave “back channel assurances” that her harsh words were just for political posturing and show. Ha! And, just days after a Canadian government memo stated that Obama’s senior economic adviser told Canadian officials that the senator’s own comments about NAFTA were for “political posturing”.
These liars don’t even give their own party Democrats credit for being able to see through that and figure out they lie.
Keep it up Dems, your election this year should be good for years of Saturday Night Live comedy.
Re: polls. This far out, highly inaccurate, IMHO. If one wants to engage in “dueling polls”, there is one out yesterday, ABC/WaPo that shows Obama up 11%, Clinton up 6% on Sen. McCain. (from listing of polling at realclearpolitics.com)
I live in Florida and I voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary. All the candidates names were on the ballot and none of them campaigned.
If a re-vote is decided, I will vote again. The DNC, both candidates and the state should all pick up the cost.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT !!!
The caucus system should be BANNED in all the states. Voting should be one vote per person in a PRIMARY. This is FAIR and more people get to participate, especially if the states have early voting. Caucuses sound out-dated. We’re in the 21st century.
There needs to be more uniformity in the rules. Why do some states have different rules? Primaries. Caucuses. Only Democrats can vote. Anyone can vote. It’s ridiculous and confusing. DNC are you listening?
There’s been a suggestion that primaries should be held by dividing the country into 4 regions and each region voting on separate dates. This sounds like a GOOD idea. It would be less costly and less time consuming for the candidates.
Obama won his first election in the court room, not at that ballot box:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/29/112518/642
hsr
I strongly disagree.
First of all, there are some 10th Amendment, “States Rights” issues involved. If you don’t want the States to have any rights, then work to repeal the 10th Amendment. Until that date, the State Legislators and Governors DO have a duty to carry out the wishes of their various States. I do realize that the Constitution does not even mention political parties. However, the Constitution DOES say that those things not mentioned, in that Document, are left to the States!
Also, the Caucus idea, if done correctly, does give us an idea about intensity and 2nd choice preferences. It serves a valid purpose.
Each State should decide, on its own, how to pick delegates.
This country is a REPUBLIC and not a pure Democracy.
Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Democracy can become mob rule, verly quickly, if minority rights are not protected.
Having said all of this? The interesting thing about this year, should Obama win?
Obama has won the Democrat Primary, primarily in states that will NOT go Democrat in November.
Likewise, McCain won the Republican nomination in large measure, primarily in states that will NOT go Republican, in November.
I, for one, do not like the “winner take all” rules, in some of the States, but I do think that the individual states should have the power to decide such things.
The DNC made this mess for themselves. They moved up Nevada and South Carolina, hoping to game the system and establish a front-runner who could campaign unimpeded while the other party’s nominees were still fighting it out. It worked–but for the other party, not for them. Oops!
The MI and FL Dem parties did NOT “agree” to the changeup except in the sense that San Francisco “agreed” to a second Bush admin by not seceding from the union. The changeup was forced on them by the DNC. MI and FL revolted and moved up their primaries. It wasn’t forced on them by GOP legislators either–the votes to do it in the state legislatures were near-unanimous. Both GOP and Dem state parties in FL and MI accepted that they would pay the traditional penalty of being stripped of half their delegates–and that’s exactly what the GOP did to their line-jumpers. And both sides assumed that the tradition of seating the full delegations ANYWAY at the convention would also be followed, once the primaries had settled who the nominee would be. Ooops!
But the DNC decided to retaliate against their own state parties by stripping ALL the delegates on their side in those states. And then, lo and behold, no clear Dem front-runner emerged. Now the DNC is stuck with a mess of their own making, one that just about guarantees that the nominee will be settled by back-room dealing and horse-trading among the super-delegates.
Because your vote only counts in the DNC if you vote the way they want you to.
snarky
Excellent post!
By the way, I have been trying to look for the actual “rules” that Florida and Michigan violated.
Is it fair to say that this is more of a “tradition” than it is a “rule”??
Or, at least, is it fair to say that the Democrats tend to ignore the rules, no matter what they might say? Or to make up the rules as they go?
Here you go, some RULES lol:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465
And, Florida Law:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/17261/4418