Breaking: DNC strips Florida of delegates for moving primary to January

posted at 3:04 pm on August 25, 2007 by Allahpundit

Florida’s move from Super-Ultra-Mega Tuesday on February 5 to January 29 is what started the race to the bottom that pushed the South Carolina GOP to move to January 19 and has Michigan on the verge of moving up to January 15. If that happens, Iowa and New Hampshire are legally required to move up, which could push the Iowa caucuses into December 2007. So the DNC had to get tough. Consider this a shot across the bow at Michigan, too:

The Democratic Party has taken a swipe at the nation’s fourth biggest state, stripping Florida of all of its ’08 delegates as punishment for jumping the gun with its primary, which is forcing other states to crowd Christmas in the quest to be first…

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted nearly unanimously that Florida’s plan is noncompliant with party rules, and gave the state 30 days to fix it. Otherwise, the state will lose 100 percent of its delegates…

Roosevelt: “The event on Jan. 29 would be purely a beauty contest — equivalent, as somebody said, to the Iowa straw poll.”…

Roosevelt: “This resolution that was voted here, because it takes away 100 percent of the delegates if the rules are violated, means that there are no particular sanctions on the campaigns if they were to campaign in Florida.”

Hillary’s got a monster lead there right now, but I’m not sure how that shakes out. There’s no sense in Obama and Edwards wasting resources to campaign there if it’s a foregone conclusion with no delegates even in play — unless Hillary builds up a big lead nationwide, in which case they may look at Florida as somewhere they can shift the momentum by campaigning hard and pulling an upset. The problem for Florida is that they’ve got 30 days to back down or commit and we won’t have any sense of which way the winds are blowing nationally before then.

As for Michigan, they might be able to avoid sanctions if they turn their January 15 primary into a caucus. That would redound to Silky’s advantage while hurting Hillary. Click here to see why.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If I understood it, I might care.
But I don’t.

Tru2my2 on August 25, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Zzzz.

Good Lt on August 25, 2007 at 3:12 PM

To the two commenters above me, I have a video I think you need to see.

mjgreco on August 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM

This is gotten ridiculous. The general election isn’t until NOVEMBER 2008! Why must this be drawn out for so long? It’s out of hand. Big states should be leapfrogging the other direction so they could put the nominee over the top leading up to the convention. Although, I think I’d prefer a National Primary Day about three months before the general.

CP on August 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM

mjgreco

How appropriate.

Guardian on August 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM

This is what kind of pisses me off about Fred being forced in to the election now…. everyone whines that he’s waiting so long, etc…. when in reality, the political season just started WAAAAAAAY too early. Fred knows what time it is, and he’s just watching everyone beat themselves up.

I’m not claiming I’ll support him in the end, we’ll see what he’s made of… Rumor has it he’s made of Centrum Silver, geritol, and depends. If that’s true, Fred meet me behind Shoney’s during happy hour, I’ll be the one wearing a hospice nurse’s uniform with a hole in the back.

RightWinged on August 25, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Someone will have to spell this out for me because I don’t know who the players are. (Does anyone else see any similarity to the chaotic tribal loyalties Iraq, minus the violence of course.)

It is obvious that one of the candidates campaign apparatus is attempting to skew the nominating process in her favor, and the other candidates are fighting back.

What I don’t know is who is doing what to whom, nor how it works. You political fanatics are going to have to explain this in terms I can understand.

Beyond that, this demonstrates what the individuals involved are willing to do; i.e. change the rules, especially changing the rules in their favor.

“Let’s flip a coin, that would be fair, right?
Heads I win, tails you lose, deal?.”

rockhauler on August 25, 2007 at 3:34 PM

The primaries shouldn’t start until January and they need to be spread out.

NH ought to stand alone in January.

I’m from Florida, but lived in New Hampshire for over nine years. There is a huge difference in the primaries. Florida is so big you never get that close to the candidates. In NH they have to drop in on many coffee shops and mom and pop operations–they can’t hide behind their entourage as well.

This article caught my eye on Monday: Inquisitive NH Voter Reacts To Giuliani Remark. I’m not doing this to pick on Giuliani, this is just an example. (All the bold font in the following quotes is my emphasis).

Giving the little people a chance to face off with “big people” is what makes the New Hampshire primary famous.

Rudy Giuliani is the latest candidate to get caught off guard by a cut-to-the-chase question from a voter.

The writer outlines the question and goes on to say:

It’s outrageous Katherine has been taking heat for politely asking about it. And it’s testimony to the value in forcing candidates out of their media bubble once in awhile to take blunt questions from fearless voters, New Hampshire style.

The American Spectator had a column on NH on Tuesday: Still Some Granite in New Hampshire

…it was an easy trick in my week’s visit here to catch Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo strutting their stuff in venues including a country store, an auditorium at a solar panel manufacturer, a small concert hall, restaurants, and individual homes. Rudy fetched more than 300 at the solar manufacturer, and Tom Tancredo talked and answered question for more than a hour for 16 people at a home in Concord…

…I also took the occasion for a close look at New Hampshire’s storied retail presidential politics. I’m glad I did. Things in this arena are alive and well. New Hampshire, along with Iowa, is still vetting the candidates for the rest of the country in that up close and personal way. Nothing packaged about the way candidates here are obliged to answer sometimes pointed and mostly intelligent questions, usually far away from television cameras.

When these guys leave New Hampshire, they’ll move on to states where campaigning is wholesale, where packaging for TV rules, and where the voters don’t get nearly the opportunity to talk back as they do here. Even Tom Tancredo wouldn’t talk to 16 people in a private home in Florida, not unless there were TV cameras there. In New Hampshire, voters get the measure of candidates, and put them on the spot in ways they just can’t do elsewhere. It helps the savvy and engaged voters here make up their minds, it helps the rest of us better understand those who want to be America’s CEO, and it will still give the candidates who win here a heck of a bump.

INC on August 25, 2007 at 3:36 PM

This jockeying for position reminds me of a body building contest I saw on TV once. The male contestants, all in a line, kept taking a step forward so they would stand out. It was hilarious. Their ego would not let them be in the background even by just a step. Eventually, they were off the stage and out standing out by the audience.

If the Democrats are still shut out of the White House after the 2008 elections, they may be having their primaries four years ahead of the elections.

Texas Mike on August 25, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Some state ought to pass a law requiring their primary to be held on the same date as New Hampshire’s, rather than just jockeying for position this year in a race to the starting line. As far as I know, it would be perfectly within their rights to do so. This would place two states’ laws in direct conflict, creating a situation that they’d either have to live with or settle in court. Either outcome would be a relief to all of this primary scheduling madness that we’re seeing this year.

Big S on August 25, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Sorry, but watching these dim bulbs turn on each other is a pure joy to watch.

Kowboy on August 25, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I like the DNC’s idea, but I would go farther with it. Make every state’s delegate count dependent upon when they hold their primaries-the earlier the primary, the fewer delegates they get. Do it for both parties. Then let each state decide how they wish to balance the early-bird prestige with the power of actual delegates.

Lancer on August 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Since I am not a member of any particular party, I couldn’t care less about the primaries. The primaries (as well as the conventions)should be 100% funded by the party holding the them and not waste taxpayer money. If they do hold primaries, they should all be held on the same day like a general election so that one state won’t influence another.

DAT60A3 on August 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Make every state’s delegate count dependent upon when they hold their primaries-the earlier the primary, the fewer delegates they get.

Lancer on August 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Nice idea, but it would probably cause the same type of problem going in the other direction. All the primaries would be the day before the conventions.

Hmmmm…. is that really a problem?

Kowboy on August 25, 2007 at 4:17 PM

GG. The only one of the four largest states likely to be considered a battleground state in the general election, and the Democrats start out 2008 by giving the voters the finger.

Squid Vicious on August 25, 2007 at 4:24 PM

One more thing: I just looked it up, and the primary date was changed by the legislature, both houses of which are controlled by the GOP. What’s the likelihood they will be affected by pressure from the Democrats? Anyone want to guess

Squid Vicious on August 25, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Two words come to mind: disenfranchise voters

Maybe this is the shape of things to come under Herr Hillary. I bet Dr. Dean wishes he had his union thugs and mafia back to handle little problems like this.

Wuptdo on August 25, 2007 at 5:03 PM

The date doesn’t matter. They still haven’t figured out how to cast a vote.

Zaire67 on August 25, 2007 at 5:33 PM

The date doesn’t matter. They still haven’t figured out how to cast a vote.

Zaire67 on August 25, 2007 at 5:33 PM

:-)

INC on August 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM

I wonder when they’ll start the “disenfrancised voters” ads here in Florida… I really want to hear the local democrats cry foul at their own party, but I won’t hold my breath…

rightg33k on August 25, 2007 at 6:31 PM

I’d cry foul if I was a Dem. Wait for the ugliness at the DNC convention if Florida’s delegation (perhaps others?) are locked out.

laelaps on August 25, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Heh, we’ll be voting in the primary on Christmas eve.

Alden Pyle on August 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM

I’d cry foul if I was a Dem. Wait for the ugliness at the DNC convention if Florida’s delegation (perhaps others?) are locked out.

laelaps on August 25, 2007 at 6:55 PM

You mean like Chicago, 1968? Only this time the violence will be inside the convention hall, not outside?

rockhauler on August 25, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Who cares?

Nomination conventions shouldn’t involve the government anyway.

Make all candidates write ins and be done with it.

Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:33 AM

This is really funny as the Constitution never mentions political parties, nominating conventions, or primary elections.

So, since the concept of selecting delegates and having a parties nominees select a party’s candidate is extra-constitutional in the first place, and is causing a major disruption in America’s electoral system as well, I’ve had a few thoughts on how to control this.

Given the 2 year perpetual campaign for President now on going, and that the party so-called “leaders” (morons, IMHO) in Iowa, SC, FL, and NH, etc., all trying to be THE FIRST primary election, why should the rest of the country be diverted by this sideshow and all those goofball debates, straw polls, and primary elections, etc., nearly 11 months in advance of the real election?

Why do these party hacks care who’s first? Idunno. Why is it important to be first? Idunno. I think it’s more ego stroking for the people of a small, unimportant state, who wishes to regain some past faded glory of maybe being the state to get lucky and “select” the future President by virtue of their primary/caucus/strawpoll, blah, blah, blah. But it has a major deleterious effect upon the political system by virtue of the unwarranted attention it draws.

And, since it is SO far in advance of the election, it deprives the Nation of having other choices in response to events closer to the election, and it results in not allowing these (“extra-constitutional”) parties to have the flexibility to respond to national emergencies by selecting the best person for the job of President that represents their point of view, not some joker who got lucky in New Hampshire or Iowa, but who otherwise couldn’t find FEMA or the Pentagon with a map and wouldn’t be a serious candidate otherwise.

11 months is a VERY long time to preselect a party’s candidate. Especially grotesque given the fact that the Constitution requires the President to be elected by ELECTORS, and not the general public.

Do you realize, that with all but one Democratic candidate being a Senator or House member, that the people of the states who have a Senator in the campaign ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED IN THE SENATE because these powermad assclowns are too busy going to “gay” debates, “youtube” debates, AFLCIO, “KOS” debates, strawpoll debates, and on and on and on. On the Republican side, only 1 candidate is a Senator, but still….

So, be it resolved that no Primary election can be held prior to July 1, 2008. All previous primary dates are null and void. Should any state hold a primary election before July 1, that state shall be considered to be in rebellion against the United States Constitution, and the Armed Forces of the United States shall invade and dissolve the current state government, placing all party officials and elected officials (who established these illegal dates) in the soon to be available security facility at Gitmo for a period of 10 years.

I think only the threat of jail will put an end to the madness of selecting a party’s candidate 11 months or more before the election.

If the Constitution doesn’t mention primary elections or political parties, much less “nominating delegates,” in selecting a President, why should the rest of the country put up with this nonsense coming from these unimportant states?

I mean, really. This entire primary season is ridiculous!

[Flame away, FL, IA, NH, SC, etc., posters.... ;^) ]

georgej on August 26, 2007 at 7:13 AM

The beauty in this procedurally insignificant event is that the majority of democrats in this state most likely never imagined that their own party would be hostile toward something that they thought would advance the party’s cause.

Does this decision by the DNC affect us on the right? No. Is it entertaining to some of us? Yes, especially since it pretty much supports several points of contention that we normally have against the left (both in this state and in general).

One thing that must be observed by all is regardless of undue negative influence, i.e.: a vastly left-biased media, is that the Presidency is up for grabs whether we like it or not. Standing still while the opposition builds up steam and the collective consciousness of those who are more reactionary than logical is just as bad if not worse.

Should government step in? Heck no! Government has no business dictating party doctrine and discipline.

Will this have an impact on existing democrats in this, the fourth largest state of the union which for all intents and purposes is almost divided down the line politically? Somewhat. While those who are hard-core followers of liberalism will fall on their knees and repent to the almighty party, those who are moderate will start reflecting on whether or not it’s smart to belong to a party which drives itself to the ground by reacting to campaigning gimmicks and poorly thought logic. Now is not the time to kick those moderates to the curb; after all, how many of us at one time thought that sitting on the fence and sensing where the wind blows was the right thing to do? There’s a time for moderates to grow up, and this very will might be that event.

Anyhow, just sit back and enjoy their in-house drama and remember: what divides them can only make us stronger.

rightg33k on August 26, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Who wants to bet that later this move urged on by the DNC will be attacked for “marginalizing voters” or some such nonsense.

As to Fred? Well, since he’s so damn lazy and has been toying with us, maybe this is the wakeup call he needs to realize he’s far too lazy to deal with any of this, and he should just tell us he’s giving up. Things are just moving too fast for his wee golf cart to keep up, and his Gucci shoes might get dirty. On the plus side, now he can funnel PAC money to his son even sooner than expected.

BKennedy on August 26, 2007 at 11:01 PM

I really hate to say this, but for once I agree with the DNC. This campaign has gone past rediculous and has entered the realm of the truly comical and bizarre. It’s completely out of control, and states jockying for position like this only makes it worse.

Something has to be done. Is the answer a national primary day? Maybe, maybe not. But I think a law needs to be established that no state can have their primary before a certain date.

If:
IA wants to keep their status as “First in the nation” and
NH wants to keep their status as “First primary” and
SC wants to keep their status as “First in the South” then
Provisions can be made in the law that establishes allowances made for these “traditions.” Make it a law that states that have had their primaries first for x number of years can continue to be first, and the rest can’t have theirs until after x date. Then let the rest fall out where it will.

But voting just to select a candidate 11 months out (and not even in the year of the election) is just insane.

crazy_legs on August 27, 2007 at 9:55 AM