Amusing FL Primary Tidbit

[Pangloss]

I know I've been kinda ranting about the Florida primary situation, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up once again, but I just thought you guys might appreciate a humorous side note about it. These are the stickers they gave out today to all Florida primary voters:

 

 

[iNow]

Okay.

 

So, this issue keeps coming up. Since the race is so close, the candidates are digging their heals in the sand on the issue of how to deal with Florida and Michigan.

 

Meet The Press this morning had a good discussion about it. They showed 1) the exact rule with the DNC which states by law how only the four states are allowed to hold a primary before Super Tuesday, and how any which went before that date forfeited their delegates. They showed 2) Hillary Clinton's statement to this rule back in the end of 2007, where she and her campaign expressed full support of it and it's implications. They showed that 3) counting the votes now, after all candidates agreed not to campaign there, would not be a valid nor representative sample. They showed 4) that something should be done, and a caucus held, but that the Clinton camp would fight this since she's done historically poorly in caucus, and better in primaries. They showed 5) how the super delegates could very likely go against the popular result and destroy the Democrat's credibility in this race which is theirs to win.

 

Hillary ultimately needs to win every upcoming contest to have a legitimate chance. No wonder she wishes to go back on her original agreement regarding Florida and Michigan.

[D H]

I have seen some Democrats trying to spin the Florida debacle as a Republican plot on the basis that it was the Republican-dominated state legislature that voted to move to the Florida primary to January 29. However, the situation in Florida is the Florida Democrats own doing (and possibly undoing).

 

From a October 30, 2007 article in Salon.com ( http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html):

To hear the DNC tell it, however, the fault for the current imbroglio lies with Geller and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature. For months, the party has threatened to punish any state that unilaterally tried to move its primary date before Feb. 5.

Under party rules, the punishment, which is also likely to be imposed on Michigan, can only be carried out if state Democrats were complicit in the change. The Florida effort to move the date was sponsored by a Democrat, state Sen. Jeremy Ring

, also of Broward, who remains unapologetic about his role. "I think we have successfully blown up this antiquated primary process," he said in a phone interview last week. "I have absolutely no regrets."

 

The DNC rules would not have applied if this were a Republican dirty trick; those delegates would have been seated were this the case. This was not a Republican dirty trick. A Democratic representative proposed the move and the Democratic representatives voted unanimously in support of it. To blame this on Republicans is simply scandalous. The Democrats did this to themselves.

[iNow]

Hmmm... I hadn't heard that "it's a dirty Republican trick" idea yet. I appreciate you bringing it up, and also showing that it doesn't have merit.

[Pangloss]

It's good of you to bring this up again; I was a bit leery about raising it because I have an iron in this fire myself, and I was afraid I might be bugging folks here with my numerous posts on the subject.

 

I wish I'd caught that Meet The Press; it sounds like they had an interesting show this week. I'm mystified how law gets involved in a DNC rule, did they expand on what that means? Or was it just a figure of speech?

 

I think a good case could be made that Florida would have fallen as it did either way (does nobody in Florida own a TV?), but I agree that it's not entirely representative, and if we're going to have our delegates counted then candidates have to campaign here first -- it's the American way. We should have a caucus, with appropriate notice and both candidates campaigning here.

 

Also some staunchly-Democrat friends of mine raised an interesting point over the weekend, which was that they voted for Edwards, who is no longer in the race. A caucus would allow them to make an appropriate decision between the remaining candidates.

 

(Did they talk about the caucus suggestion on MtP? Just curious. There has been some discussion about it here in FL, but no real movement as yet. Here's an article.)

 

(Yes, I have friends who voted for John Edwards!)

[D H]

Here's an article.

The last bit of the article is telling:

Hall said he's worried that some Democrats who feel like the primary didn't work well could look elsewhere on the ballot in November, a concern he has passed along to party leaders at the state and national levels. "They're going to mess around and let a Republican win Michigan. And then everyone will be sitting around and saying `I told you so,'" he said.

 

State Sen. Tupac Hunter [ ... ] worries about souring Democratic voters if Michigan's delegates. "You have a situation where people could become disaffected and discouraged," he said. "And if that happens, we don't win in November."

 

I doubt McCain can take Michigan, one of the bluest of blue states. Moreover, while Romney made false promised about getting all those lost jobs back in Michigan, McCain had the audacity to tell the truth: "Those jobs are gone. They are never coming back". He instead proposed training Michiganders to do different kinds of jobs. People who have lost their very way of life are not particularly wont to hear a hard-hitting truth.

 

I suspect the situation in Florida is much, much dicier for the Democrats. They did support Clinton, after all. The elderly are one of her core constituencies. I am on the record as predicting that Florida will go for McCain should Florida's delegation not be allowed to participate in the Democratic Convention.

 

The Obama campaign is going after a younger crowd. BTW, what's the deal with this? Demographics and past voting characteristics of young adults suggest that this is a doubly-losing tactic.

[iNow]

I wish I'd caught that Meet The Press; it sounds like they had an interesting show this week.

 

You can watch it in it's entirety via Netcast here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23210588#23210588

 

 

I'm mystified how law gets involved in a DNC rule, did they expand on what that means? Or was it just a figure of speech?

This is covered starting at ~ 9m20s into the show.

 

 

I agree that it's not entirely representative, and if we're going to have our delegates counted then candidates have to campaign here first -- it's the American way. We should have a caucus, with appropriate notice and both candidates campaigning here.

 

<...>

 

(Did they talk about the caucus suggestion on MtP? Just curious.

 

Yes. If Obama carries the next several states, like Texas, Ohio, and/or Pennsylvania, then Florida becomes a non-issue, as their delegates won't be enough to push Hillary back to the top. However, many suggest that they caucus, and Hillary's camp is fighting this as she's been regularly bad in caucus, and instead seems to do better in primaries, which there's clearly not enough time for (see my point #4 in the post above). Also, Florida has a Republican Governor and republican congress, and they may not allow a primary.

[Pangloss]

I am on the record as predicting that Florida will go for McCain should Florida's delegation not be allowed to participate in the Democratic Convention.

 

I wish I could say I at least agreed with your prediction that Florida voters will suddenly become irate after they're surprised at the convention by the discovery that their delegates won't be seated, but I'm afraid the truth is more likely that Floridians know exactly what's happening to them, and they don't care enough to do anything about it. Every single person I've mentioned this to over the past few months was already aware of it.

 

---------

 

Thanks for the show link, I didn't realize MTP was online.

 

Also, Florida has a Republican Governor and republican congress, and they may not allow a primary.

 

Well, even more to the point, Charlie Crist was a big part of the move to bring the primary up to January. He's not about to back off from that position now.

 

But in fairness I don't think Crist did that for partisan reasons. You have to remember that this was a move designed to make Florida relevent, not to harm Democrats. And Republicans have paid a price for it as well. There's a larger battle here that has to be recognized. And there are plenty of Florida Democrats running around saying it was worth it (some of them Hillary supporters, too). Not that you were claiming partisanship, but I've read plenty of analysis around the 'net revolving around that point and I think it's a mistake to look at it that way, especially since Crist is seen as a moderate (he's often the target of Rush Limbaugh jokes and rants, for example).

[iNow]

See post #4, this thread.

 

 

I hadn't EVER considered the idea that this was Republicans fault until I read it in DH's post, and then when I saw it after finding the MTP link a few hours ago. Even this morning when watching the show live, I missed to comment about Republicans, and only caught it when trying to find for you the time stamp on the comments about Hillary fully supporting this idea earlier in the race and putting out a public statement regarding same.