Florida Demos tell DNC to kiss off

[TOJ]

The Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates

So who is going to blink? :rwbdonkey

 

[Cold Highway]

Its a stupid and rather stubborn move by the Florida Democrats.

 

[Kandahar]

So who is going to blink? :rwbdonkey

The DNC will. There's no way in hell they're going to keep Florida's delegates out of the convention. Florida Democrats have already threatened to protest outside the convention if they are not allowed to enter. The DNC's job is electing Democrats, not preserving the sacred primary calendar. So eventually, they'll cave.

Hopefully for the next presidential election, the DNC and RNC will be able to reach an agreement to reform the primary system and eliminate the problem of states doing this ****.

 

[TOJ]

Its a stupid and rather stubborn move by the Florida Democrats.

If FL goes ahead and the DNC does not withhold certification, the DNC will look pretty stupid and impotent. Of coarse if they do withhold, they will piss off a very important swing state. If the DNC was not prepared to go through with it, they should not have made the threat.

I'm betting the FL delegation will be certified no matter what they do.

 

[TOJ]

Hopefully for the next presidential election, the DNC and RNC will be able to reach an agreement to reform the primary system and eliminate the problem of states doing this ****.

How do they do that? They haven't agreed on anything for the last 3-4 decades and they are certainly not going to go against their base or the state orgs.

 

[Kandahar]

How do they do that? They haven't agreed on anything for the last 3-4 decades and they are certainly not going to go against their base or the state orgs.

I don't see why their bases would be against it. It seems to me like a fairly non-ideological belief, that primaries shouldn't be held nearly a year before the election.

Even the state orgs...most of them probably wouldn't be against some kind of reform (other than a few of the early states). While it may be in a particular states' individual interest to have an early primary, it isn't in anyone's interest to have states get in a p1ssing contest with each other and keep moving their primaries up.

The best way to handle this would be a national primary day. The second best way to handle this would be to have maybe three or four possible days on which states can vote and they would pick one.

If the system isn't changed, we'll eventually wind up picking our presidential nominees at the midterm elections.

 

[Harshaw]

Why not simply have all of them on the same day?

 

[TOJ]

I don't see why their bases would be against it. It seems to me like a fairly non-ideological belief, that primaries shouldn't be held nearly a year before the election.

Even the state orgs...most of them probably wouldn't be against some kind of reform (other than a few of the early states). While it may be in a particular states' individual interest to have an early primary, it isn't in anyone's interest to have states get in a p1ssing contest with each other and keep moving their primaries up.

The best way to handle this would be a national primary day. The second best way to handle this would be to have maybe three or four possible days on which states can vote and they would pick one.

If the system isn't changed, we'll eventually wind up picking our presidential nominees at the midterm elections.

I would think if it were so easy, they would already have done it, but maybe that's just me.

 

[TOJ]

Why not simply have all of them on the same day?

That would be one way to guarantee that only those well known from some previous endeavor could compete.

 

[Harshaw]

Depends when you have it.

 

[TOJ]

Depends when you have it.

I respectfully disagree. I am assuming you mean to hold a national primary at some late date. If that is so, the unknown candidate would not have the money to run a national campaign and hold out for that one shot.

Now back on topic since the timing of the primaries are only of passing interest to me anyway as I do get to vote in them. I just think the DNC shot themselves in the foot by threatening FL. I don't think there is any way they can follow through and it makes them look stupid.

 

[Harshaw]

No, no "national" primary." It's fully up to the states. (We actually don't hold ANY national elections here.)

But I disagree -- candidates are always free to campaign (or were before McCain-Feingold). Strangely enough, no primaries at ALL have been held, and there's at least one "unknown" raking in tons of cash.

 

[Kandahar]

I would think if it were so easy, they would already have done it, but maybe that's just me.

It wasn't really a problem before this election cycle, so there was no urgent need to address it. This election cycle is the first time that states have violated the primary rules.

 

[Kandahar]

That would be one way to guarantee that only those well known from some previous endeavor could compete.

So? What makes dark-horse candidates so special that they deserve a leg up in the elections?

 

[TOJ]

So? What makes dark-horse candidates so special that they deserve a leg up in the elections?

I don't think they deserve a leg up but, IMO, a late one day primary will rule them out. A significant showing in IA and/or NH sometimes gets a relatively unknown enough media attention to make them viable. Its possible for a candidate that does not have the big bucks to do well in IA and NH because of their size.

Of course this is how the US ended up with Carter so, never mind... I don't know what the hell I was thinking. :doh

Maybe being super rich should be a qualification?

 

[TOJ]

No, no "national" primary." It's fully up to the states. (We actually don't hold ANY national elections here.)

I was referring to all the states holding thier primaries on the same day.

But I disagree -- candidates are always free to campaign (or were before McCain-Feingold). Strangely enough, no primaries at ALL have been held, and there's at least one "unknown" raking in tons of cash.

Not enough to run a full campaign. If he did well in IA or NH the media would start taking him seriously. Like it or not, the media decides if a someone is a viable candidate and so far they've not decided he is.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't think they deserve a leg up but, IMO, a late one day primary will rule them out. A significant showing in IA and/or NH sometimes gets a relatively unknown enough media attention to make them viable. Its possible for a candidate that does not have the big bucks to do well in IA and NH because of their size.

Why is this a good thing?

Maybe being super rich should be a qualification?

Howard Dean wasn't "super rich," nor was he well-known prior to the 2004 election. Yet he became the national frontrunner for several months in fall 2003.

Maybe there's a REASON some candidates get noticed and others don't.

 

[TOJ]

Why is this a good thing?

I don't know that it is. Is the DNC making threats they cannot follow through on a good thing for the party?

Howard Dean wasn't "super rich," nor was he well-known prior to the 2004 election. Yet he became the national frontrunner for several months in fall 2003.

Maybe there's a REASON some candidates get noticed and others don't.

He may not have been super rich but he was/is very well off. Anyway, he was weeded out in IA, especially after his little YeaHaw episode showed he was not taking his meds regularly.

 

[Harshaw]

Actually, I always very much thought the "yeaargh" was waaay overblown.

But Dean did in fact show that you don't need staggered primaries to get noticed and lead the pack.

That he was "weeded out" in Iowa works against your entire premise. Had he not been "weeded out," and every primary was that day, he may well have been the nominee.

 

[TOJ]

Actually, I always very much thought the "yeaargh" was waaay overblown.

But Dean did in fact show that you don't need staggered primaries to get noticed and lead the pack.

That he was "weeded out" in Iowa works against your entire premise. Had he not been "weeded out," and every primary was that day, he may well have been the nominee.

Would that have been a good thing?

 

[Harshaw]

Would that have been a good thing?

Doesn't make a difference. All that matters is that he, an "unknown," could have had the nomination if all the primaries were on the same day.

 

[TOJ]

Doesn't make a difference. All that matters is that he, an "unknown," could have had the nomination if all the primaries were on the same day.

No he couldn't. The media made him the front runner because of his stance on the war but he could not get votes. The main thing he accomplished was to pull the rest of field far enough left that Bush won.

Trying to be competitive across the nation in a one day primary would be prohibitive for most candidates that are not super rich or already have a machine in place like the Clintons. They already have a tremendous advantage, but a one day primary would make it unsurmountable.

Maybe after four of Bush, eight of Clinton, eight of Bush, and eight of Clinton people will be fed up enough to make some changes, although I won't be holding my breath..

 

[Harshaw]

I don't agree at all.

 

[TOJ]

I don't agree at all.

With what specifically?

 

[Harshaw]

With the first two paragraphs of your post which were there at the time I posted mine.