free-for-all

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:26:19 PM EDT

The DNC has no leverage over Florida:

Nearly 100 party activists unanimously voted to hold the primary on Jan. 29, setting the stage for sticky negotiations with the national party. DNC chairman Howard Dean appears to have little leeway to waive the rules, and even Florida Democrats doubt party activists in other states will want to make a special exception for Florida to violate a primary schedule carefully crafted in 2006.

Dean would probably like to see the current system destroyed, and what better way for it to happen than to let it implode upon itself. Michigan, which has long wanted to mess with New Hampshire, has been sitting back and waiting too.

After Florida lawmakers this year moved the primary from March to January - ahead of South Carolina - the Palmetto State is seriously looking at moving its primaries before Florida, which so far is the only state to violate the rules. Michigan party officials also are looking at scheduling a January election, with Iowa and New Hampshire talking about moving still earlier.

The early primary has been less problematic for Florida Republicans. While they will lose delegates under national party rules, the penalties are less severe than with the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Florida party officials are talking about holding a non-binding presidential straw vote in October, a symbolic exercise that could cost presidential campaigns hundreds of thousands of dollars if they aggressively try to organize a strong showing among Democratic activists.

They voted to hold off on a decision until later this summer, but Monroe County state committee member Pam Martin summed up the goal for holding one: "I want to be wooed."

And great, the GOP's Iowa's strawpoll vote get demoted and the Dems Florida strawpoll gets reinstated.... Then we turn to New Hampshire:
Gardner said he did not want the primary held on the assigned date of Jan. 22, given that within 12 days later, more than 20 states will be holding their primaries. "I don't see that as good for the country," Gardner said.

The longtime secretary of state said he had yet to choose a date, but would do so by the fall. He has not ruled out the possibility of moving the date into late 2007 to keep New Hampshire first. "My standard line has been, it's not going to be out of the realm of possibility," he said.

The discussion yesterday evening came on the heels of the news that the Democratic Party in Florida decided to move forward with having its primary on Jan 29, in violation of national Democratic Party rules that Dean said he would still enforce.

"We've set our rules and we're going to enforce them and if state parties go around these rules, it will involve losing their delegates," said Damien LaVera, a national party spokesman, who added that the same applied to New Hampshire.

My guess? Michigan jumps ahead of New Hampshire after they choose a date.

Tags: 08 primary (all tags)

Comments

19 Comments

Shadow_head_small
at least it is interesting

And while I hate to agree with the NH guy, it would be nice to have a bit more time to digest the results.

by John DE 2007-06-11 03:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
this is very screwed up

I am going to be doing GOTV between Thanksgiving and X-mas? Good grief.

by desmoinesdem 2007-06-11 03:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: this is very screwed up

screwed up is right.

by Korha 2007-06-11 03:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

Is Dean going to take the hit on this?  Is the CW going to blame him?  And god forbid what if the Clintons get in the WH, what will happen to Dean then?  They will probably give the DNC to James Carville.

by aiko 2007-06-11 03:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

For the most part, I have voted the straight party ticket since 1976.  But the older I get the harder it is to support the traditional mainstream dems--the good ole boys/gals.  So the answer is: probably.  As much as I don't want the Clintons back in the WH, I might feel compelled to vote for what might be the first woman president.

by aiko 2007-06-11 05:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

Coo-Coo!  Coo-coo!

This whole thing is a mess.  And the logic, or lack of logic behind how it seemingly gets this way is revealed in this article.

Does anyone remember that once upon a time California was important because it was LAST!  Now, everyone is playing stupid games to be first.

The key point is, the system destroys any chance for a grassroots campaign to win.  This system is heavily tilted towards who has big money behind them.  With who has the party hacks behind them as a second most important factor.

Some of this you saw last time around.  Remember how Dean got blitzed by a hostile media in Iowa, and before anyone knew it Kerry was the nominee.  How'd that work out for the Dems?

All the big states coming fast and furious means that you've got to have advertising money.  And having the party hacks in a state line up behind you helps too.  If you want to really build a campaign with the support of the American people, you don't have time. Its going to be wham,bamm, thank you maam so fast everyone's head is going to spin.

Then we are going to be stuck with another gawd-awful crappy candidate chosen by big money and the party hacks.

If the Democratic Party believed in democracy, they'd design a system that was just the opposite of this.  Tells you a lot about the Democratic Party these days.

by COBear 2007-06-11 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I hope it's fixed by 2012

I hope that this clusterfuck finally sets the primary system for some much needed reform.  Maybe it will be so messed up that the purveyors of divine right in Iowa and New Hampshire will at last be defeated by fairness and common sense.  One can only hope.

by nanoboy 2007-06-11 04:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

With primaries getting pushed farther and farther forward, I'm afraid we will eventually leave us with no time to get to know some of the lesser known candidates.  Furthermore, I'm afraid some very important issues will be left out of the mix in the scramble to secure the early primaries.  We need to force our representatives--current and future--to push for the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025.   It has been calculated that $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide.  Compare this number with the United States' current defense budget--$522 billion--and the task of ending global hunger seems well within reach.  

by Jessica 2007-06-11 04:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

Anything that changes the horseshit manner we nominate candidates today is for the good.  The only way the system will change is if external factors change it.  Iowa and NH certainly aren't going to give up their status willingly.

I give Florida serious credit for telling the DNC to fuck off.  This might be the impetus for a serious change in the process for 2012.

by Double B 2007-06-11 04:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

It's great.  My primary vote might actually count.  It's an amazing feeling being enfranchised.

by fwiffo 2007-06-11 05:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

I see it opposite.  I feel like saying "Fuck off" to Florida.  I really hate Florida, for a multitude of reasons.  This bad behavior seems typical.  I'd expect it of California, too.  Oh, wait, they moved up to Feb. 5th, crowding out the other states, overwhelming the delegate count, so they're fucking it up, too.

by jallen 2007-06-11 09:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

(sarcastic Claping) this would have been a good story had you done in back on May 28th when the issue first came up

by orin76 2007-06-11 04:21PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: free-for-all

This issue has been up since the DNC decided last Fall, not our fault you just caught the drift a few weeks ago.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-11 04:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

no the florida issue became an issue back in may when they decided to move the primary  with our permission

by orin76 2007-06-11 04:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

I agree with COBear's statement: "If the Democratic Party believed in democracy, they'd design a system that was just the opposite of this."

This is horrible news. Anyone that thinks it isn't really should reexamine the process. All this top heavy process does is assure that money and only money drives the nomination process. There will be little time to actually campaign and spend time with citizens in town hall meetings answering questions and making proposals.

This sure ain't good!

by DoIT 2007-06-11 04:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

Won't the penalties, though, reduce Florida's total delegate count and nullify delegates won by candidates who campaign there? I thought Dean decided to punish the states and candidates who violate the calendar?

by domma 2007-06-11 05:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

The DNC's threat is an empty one.  The problem is this:

The ultimate authority on whether a delegation gets seated by the convention is .... the convention.  That is, in order to challenge the standing of a given set of delegates, you have to do it in the convention, and then the matter is decided by a vote of the convention (i.e., the already-seated delegates).

Keep in mind the convention is made up of delegates supporting the various candidates,... who in turn have an inherent interest in making sure that other delegates supporting the same candidates get seated.

What Iowa and NH do is they go to the candidates directly and have them agree to make sure all of their delegates vote to seat the Iowa/NH delegations no matter what, which they have an inherent interest in doing anyway because they want as many votes as they can on the convention floor.

and at that point the DNC rules don't matter.

by wrog 2007-06-11 05:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

In theory, yes.  However, it's better to have some say in the outcome rather than to have no say at all.  Apparently, FL Democrats recognize that an early, "illegal" primary gives them more influence than a later one run according to Hoyle.  More delegates don't matter if the nomination is already wrapped up.  Super-duper Tuesday is already so crowded that those voters won't get that much face time.

It's a big game of "chicken."  IMHO, the current system has to break down completely before we can get a better one to replace it.

by NM Ward Chair 2007-06-12 07:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: free-for-all

As a party we look like FUCKING morons with all this crap going on.  God forbid we try to tackle the important stuff like the war or healthcare... Florida or Michigan voting before SC or NH is what's really important.  Everyone of those state officials should be thrown out of the party for this bullshit.

by yitbos96bb 2007-06-12 07:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------