Can someone tell me - is it true FL & MI dems could have easily stopped the primary date changes..

[HardWorkingDem]

I thought someone wrote that the Dems in these states could have easily stopped these date changes;is this true?

[fadedrose]

1. I think they could have chosen any date after Feb 5, super Tues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Don't know about MI, but the Dems in FL didn't have the votes to

stop the legislature.

Not that they TRIED - I think it was all but 1 voted FOR the change. If they had united and voted strongly against the change there was even the possibility that the DNC would have allowed the primary to go forward, despite it being in violation. But they didn't even try, which made it obvious that it was meant as a big "fuck you" to Dr Dean and the DNC.

[boppers]

3. They tried, but there was a problem.

The date change was in a much larger bill to get electronic (with paper-trail) voting systems. They tried to amend, and failed. After wards, they kept trying for a while, but didn't have the votes.

So, either FL went back to hanging chads, or they had a primary that the DNC said was too early.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Sorry, that doesn't wash.

If the legislature really wanted to pass the paper-trail voting, ALL the Dems voting against it would have made no difference because they were STILL outnumbered. They could not have stopped the bill if they tried.

They could not have stopped the bill if they tried.

THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE BILL IF THEY TRIED.

Therefore, they could have ALL voted against the date change and STILL gotten the paper trail voting.

If the repukes switched, to prevent the paper-trail, the bill would have been killed, the date not changed, and the paper-trail vote re-introduced in a separate bill.

If you believe that that part of the bill prevented them voting against it, you've been conned.

[sandnsea]

8. Exactly n/t

[dsc]

14. It is called a deal

The GOP wanted a bipartisan bill moving the date (they were trying to avoid sanctions from the GOP) the Dems wanted a paper trail. Had the Dems pulled out of the bill the GOP would have passed it without a paper trail. Deals are made all the time but when one party breaks them so does the other.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. So they would have passed it without the paper trail.

There's no way the Dems could have pointed at that and said "See? They DOIN'T really care about your votes!"

That's bullshit.

The entire thing was a set-up to discredit Dr Dean and the DNC, and the paper-trail vote was just camouflage.

Florida got WAY more than they deserved with this settlement.

[MercutioATC]

10. "They tried to amend"...oh really?? Watch this and tell me that they "tried"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

[dsc]

15. that was after their amendment failed

and you well know that.

[MercutioATC]

16. Right. They really wanted to amend the bill, so they all voted for it

(with one exception) and then made a mocking "attempt" to change the date to comply with the DNC rules.

Do you really think they fought changing the date or, once it had been changed, attempted to object?

[mkultra]

23. heres a video showing of geller on the florida floor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

[Duke Newcombe]

7. Who put the bill up to move the date in FL?

Duke

[hokies4ever]

9. Dems in FL didn't make a good faith effort to oppose the vote change

as was clearly shown by the video of Geller mocking the DNC on the state legislature floor.

[dems_rightnow]

13. Because they supported it

And only tried to pretend they didn't and blame it on the Republicans when they realized the DNC was serious about the penalties.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Michigan could have, Florida not so much

If you read madfloridian's journal it will show that the Florida Democrats didn't even voice opposition to moving up the primary. Truth be told, I think everyone has a bit more sympathy for Florida because even if the Dems had opposed it, they wouldn't have been able to make a difference anyway. That's part of the reason that the RBC came to a conclusion about Florida quicker than Michigan.

Michigan, on the other hand, has been trying to move their primary up for years because Carl Levin and John and Debbie Dingell want candidates to come and pander to the Detroit auto-industry and pledge not to raise emissions standards. Their argument is basically "well Iowa gets pandered to every four years, why can't we have an opportunity to get pandered to?" Personally I think that trying to solve pandering with more pandering is a shitty idea. Not to minimize unemployment in Detroit, but Global Warming is a more important issue and less is being done about it.

[SanchoPanza]

6. No and Yes

For Florida, The scheduling process is controlled by the Florida Legislature, as per Florida election law. Even if the Democrats in the legislature wanted to restore the original date (and not all of them did), they wouldn't have the votes.

The next reasonable step would to be to establish a compliant contest. The FDP had between the end of May of last year, when Crist signed the bill moving the primary, up until December of last year to put forth an alternate selection plan, and the DNC gave them further opportunities in the Spring of 2008. Essentially, to reach a compromise with the DNC and get a new contest implimented after February 5th. They refused to do that for three reasons, which varied depending on the timeline.

1) Prior to the August 25th RBC ruling (stripping 100% of the delegates), the FDP assumed they would get a 50% reduction in delegates as per the minimum penalty for violating the agreed upon schedule. For the most part, they took the position that half a primary on January 29th was better than a full primary on or after February 5th.

2) When the RBC made its ruling, the reason changed to one of indignation towards the DNC. Several members of the FDP, including Federal office holders, waged a media campaign against the DNC along with threats of legal action and "blood on the floor" at Denver. This basically lasted until late February or early March of this year, whenever the members of the FDP and the DNC got together to try to negotiate an alternate contest. You could say this was the "We're calling your bluff... Oh shit, you weren't bluffing?!" phase.

3) During the negotiation phase, it was concluded by several members of the FDP (including both Obama and Clinton supporters) that any new selection process would be logistically and/or economically impossible and, as Wexler noted at the RBC meeting, they would rather go to committee with one non-compliant contest than risk adding a second. It was too late.

I bring up the reasoning to help clarify the half vote measure handed down by the RBC. They seated all the delegates, but needed some form of punishment against a state party that either sat on its ass or threatened the DNC for 7-8 months instead of acting like grown-ups.

As for Michigan, Democrats control the executive and Michigan House while Republicans control the Senate. They could have stopped the original move at any time. They're basically not getting a voice in the implementation of their own delegation as a result.

[Hokie]

11. Good explanation

I think both the DNC and the FDP are to be commended for ending this amicably. That doesn't forgive earlier actions by the FDP and mostly the repukes in Florida. The root of all this is the insane primary and caucus system that we have. It reminds me of the bowl and BCS system we have in college football. Everyone really knows it is a pile of crap but the stakeholders who run the bowls don't want to give up their square foot of the crap.

[george_maniakes]

12. madfloridian would b the guy to ask. Or josh cryer.

they seem to know the issue inside and out from both sides.

[NotThisTime]

18. Michigan could have - they're democratically controlled, Florida they could have at least had a

vote of NO... but they didn't even do that....

[Ravy]

19. A no vote would have also been recorded on paper trails for our EVMs. nt

[george_maniakes]

20. I dont get that. it seems in the states a party can put some bullshit legislation on top of...

some popular legislation and then during a campaign they can say "look, the other party voted against this popular legislation!" Dont they realize people know they only did that because there was some bullshit legislation there too?

[Ravy]

21. Some people know.

But look at how Max Cleland was vilified and lost his senate seat because he thought the Dept of Homeland Security employees deserved the same benefits as other federal employees.

"He voted against the bill to protect our homeland... and he says he wants to keep you safe"...

Like it or not, those ads work.

[george_maniakes]

24. theres a failure somewhere if an arguement like that can succeed.

im just not sure whos fault it is.

[madfloridian]

22. They did not have to STOP it. They only had to show "good faith".

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1935

Voting 115 to 1 FOR it and almost as much in the Senate is NOT showing good faith.

[quaker bill]

25. Exactly

There was no good faith effort, had there been, the story would be entirely different as there would have been no sanction.

It is a bit worse as FL Dems supported moving the primary before the measure was drafted.

Republicans are many things down here, but they are not politically suicidal. They would not have moved the bill as written if they were not sure of bipartisan support. Had the bill passed on only republican votes, there would have been a firestorm of complaints of partisan political tampering. They would not have done it without "bipartisan" democratic support, which our "leaders" surrendered.

Just like with IWR, sometimes you have to vote no, even if the measure passes, so the other party is left holding the bag fully.