Seating FL And MI Will Open The Floodgates

[andyrowe]

If you thought this primary season was wacky, wait until the next primary once FL and MI are seated. The reason the DNC established Febuary 5th rule was to prevent the states from moving their primaries up in order to increase state revenue and political primary clout. Other states will see there is no real punishment with serious money as well as power to be had by moving up one's primary.

Of course disenfranchising these voters is also an untenable situation too. Particularly not seating FL could cause our party serious harm by moving the mother of battleground states into the red column for years to come. It's a lose/lose scenario no matter what we do.

I would have preferred the punishment to be reduced delegates (50% maybe).

[dkf]

1. Why don't we reduce them to 10%?

Then it would make them irrelevant, yet represented.

[andyrowe]

8. I'm with you on that. n/t

[Obamanaut]

19. Why not leave it as it is, and maybe, just maybe, we the people

in Florida will become angry enough at the state legislators who caused this to vote them out.

[Yossariant]

2. I agree. So then after making this huge mess, the DNC will retreat to the GOP position.

"How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" by Howard Dean.

[anamandujano]

3. I don't see why a state as important to Dems as Florida should

not be allowed to primary whenever the hell they want.

The DNC really needs to get a grip. Repukes have the popcorn out for this one. Unbelievable!

[rzemanfl]

7. It wasn't when the Dems wanted, it was when the Repukes in the

legislature wanted it and they stuck it in a "poison pill" bill the Dems could not vote against. The Florida Legislature is an evil institution that arrogates to itself the powers of the judicial and executive branches and no one stands up to it.

[Birthmark]

4. What does the DNC care...

...whether or not states move up their primaries to increase state revenue and political clout. I didn't vote for the DNC to be the arbiter of who profits economically or politically from primaries. In fact, I didn't vote for them at all.

The sad fact that the DNC hasn't realized is that they need me a HELLUVA lot more than I need them.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Because allowing all states to go whenever they want will lead to a national primary day

Which is extremely unfair to candidates without big money.

[Birthmark]

6. You *must* be kidding.

You have to be. lol

[shaniqua6392]

9. We need a national primary day.

One day. Get it over with. It will be better for those candidates without big money. They can get media exposure and let the people get to know them all at the same pace. They will have to decide the states they want to visit or they can visit us each once before the primary. Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent America. It is bull. I can't wait for the day to come when every state votes on the same day in a primary. No caucuses allowed either because they are not fair to those of us who lose a days pay if we take one off. If I don't work, I don't get paid. I have no paid days off ever. So I certainly do not want a do-over in Michigan in the form of a caucus.

[stahbrett]

11. You actually believe that a 50-state single-day primary would be better for candidates without big $

That is something that seems completely wrong to me. How does a candidate without tons of money try to compete in enough states to do well against a candidate that does have tons of money?

[Birthmark]

24. I completely agree

This nonsense about big money is laughable. Anyone notice how much is being spent in the current process?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. When we get public financing and I'm all for that

But until then I'm not. The media anointed frontrunner would unquestionably be the nominee if there's no public financing.

[pampango]

10. It would give the state parties the power to ignore the DNC, so the 2012 election cycle

would be a free-for-all with no national party rules that any state or candidate has to follow.

Having a new primary, while not a perfect solution (because of the expense and changed electoral landscape since the first primary) would allow Florida Democrats to be enfranchised and to maintain the precedence of DNC rules for the primary structure.

[andyrowe]

26. That's what I'm sceaming!

:sigh:

[cyclezealot]

12. talk about states using a primary for tourist promotion

use the example of New Hampshire. They were willing to move their state's primary before Christmas if necessary to be FIRST. And Secretary of State Gardner was instructed to do whatever is necessary to be number one. New Hampshire tourist officials have said part of the function of its presidential primary is to promote the state. And New Hampshire did move up their date in order to one up Nevada. Why blame Michigan. New Hampshire is equally responsible as to opening the floodgates.

[Vinca]

13. I thought you meant the floodgates holding back people leaving the party

if they decide to allow delegates of an unfair vote to be counted.

[cyclezealot]

14. Hillary did not campaign in Mich either

It was pretty much understood by voting 'uncommitted,' you'd be voting for Edwards or Obama. And uncommitted still got 40% of the vote.

[Vinca]

15. So who is this mysterious "uncommitted" who will get a few delegates?

Last time I checked, there was no one named "uncommitted" on the ballot. The point is, Clinton has an unfair advantage going in just because of who she is. She doesn't need to campaign to be known. The rest of the candidates - "uncommitted" - have not been First Lady for 8 years or married to Bill Clinton, the most famous man in the world, and are not getting a fair shake is they haven't introduced themselves. I doubt Clinton would have won Michigan if a bona fide campaign and vote had been held there. Edwards would have been a real favorite because of his populist message.

[cyclezealot]

16. very doubtful the 40% will go to Hillary

[Upfront]

17. Uncommitted vote in Michigan

I voted uncommitted in Michigan but I was voting for Edwards. If a do over is held Edwards is not there. Both candidate's are now talking populist issues so I don't know who would win in Michigan. Vinca you are dead on when you say Edwards could have won in Michigan.
Everyone I talked to was voting for him but two people. I would stand with Dean and not seat them, if you want to be mad at someone it should be your party's leadership which led this to happen. That was mainly Levin in Michigan. He won't get my vote for this and other reasons. He has always had my vote in the past but that is over now.

[cyclezealot]

21. don'ta you think Levin's vote on the

Iraq war, etc is more important than the DNC scrabble?

[LiberalFighter]

18. Pledged delegates reduced to 50% and Unpledged delegates 0%

Because they are mostly those that had influence in the state party to prevent the early primaries in their states.

Those of the unpledged delegates that I am referring to are Michigan and Florida's Democratic State Party Chair, Vice Chair, US Senators, US Representatives, their Governor (since only Michigan has a Democratic Governor), and DNC committee members.

[suston96]

20. Don't wanna count Florida and Michigan primary voters? Then forget them in the general. nt

[EmilyAnne]

22. I'm in Pennsylvania. My state doesn't matter at all. As far as FL and MI, no matter what,

people will be unhappy. It will add to disenfranchisement either way, which is the last thing Florida voters need, for sure. How would a revote work? Who would pay for it?

[cyclezealot]

23. Dem leaders in both states so noway.

so the point is irrelevant.