Florida Dems’ response to DNC’s primary threat: Get bent
posted at 2:03 pm on August 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
I said in May when they first moved up from February 5 to January 29 that I thought they’d be willing to risk losing their delegates to have an early primary. They want to play kingmaker by crowning whoever wins their state as the overwhelming favorite to sweep a week later on Super Ultra Mega Tuesday. Unless the near-impossible happens and Hillary and Obama split the country so evenly that Florida’s delegates would decide the nomination, the state really has nothing to lose by blowing the DNC off. Which brings us to this:
The state’s 10 Democratic members of Congress, led by Sen. Bill Nelson, issued a joint statement to “strongly encourage all Democrats to vote for their preferred nominee in that primary, regardless of whatever penalties the DNC might enact.”
“We cannot go along with anything but the state-run primary set for next January,” they said. “The vote is going to matter — period,” the lawmakers said.
The lawmakers said they would sue the DNC to stop it from banning Florida delegates, if it comes to that.
NBC predicted three months ago that Dean-o and the DNC will eventually cave and broker a deal that will let South Carolina move up a week so that it retains its pride of place as “first in the south.” The SC GOP has already moved up to January 19, which is wreaking havoc in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since they have to reschedule now anyway, the DNC might as well let the SC Dems move up to the same date as the Republican primary and let Florida stay at January 29, maybe with half their delegates stripped.
Exit question: What if Florida tries to move up again?
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
Seems the 00 disenfranchisement party has flip-flopped again. Who-wuda-thunk-it? I expect Sharpton and Jackson to be marching through Jacksonville and Miami any moment.
Limerick on August 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Pretty gutsy, I have to admit. Seems like very few people on the left are happy with the DNC and DLC these days.
MadisonConservative on August 28, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Why the bloody hell aren’t these things all done at the same time to avoid the Oneupmanship??
tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I think a reader of Instapundit said it best:
frankj on August 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I’d say this is getting ridiculous, but its been ridiculous for a while. This primary issue needs to get fixed.
Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I hope the Dems stick to their guns and sanction Florida, and the Republicans do the same. This is getting ridiculous- just have every state go on Feb 5th and be done with it- the general election doesn’t have different states voting at different times, neither should they in the primaries.
Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Nuke New Hampshire.
It’s the only way to solve this.
Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Someone please explain this to me.
Why does it matter?
Why do ‘they’ have to vote sooner? Why does the campaign have to start so early?
Why vote so early, when events can, and will, change, which might affect voter preference?
Why do voters have to choose now? There isn’t any reason why the democrat candidate has to be decided now, is there?
I really don’t get this.
rockhauler on August 28, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Anarchy. Heh.
I think the whole process will make voters much more cynical about thier leadership. Does the vast middle really care whether or not thier state is first? Probably not. What they will get tired of is their elected reporesentatives acting like children and turning the electoral process into a farce.
We are starting to culturally reject the infantile and stupid. Anchorwoman lasted 59 minutes and 59 seconds. We most certainly do not want our politicians turning governemtn into that shows real world equivalent.
Theworldisnotenough on August 28, 2007 at 2:27 PM
I’m all for state autonomy, but why isn’t the Federal government regulating a federal election. Put them all on one day. IA and NH will have to find a new claim-to-fame. Sorry.
Nosferightu on August 28, 2007 at 2:28 PM
“They said if Bush was elected Florida Democrats would be disenfranchised — and they were right!”
frankj on August 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM
That reminds me:
“They said that if I voted for Goldwater we would get into a big war in Vietnam. They were right, I voted for Goldwater and we got into a big war in Vietnam!”
- someone or other
MB4 on August 28, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The whole problem is caused by those in New Hampshire and Iowa feeling that they somehow have the God given right to ALWAYS be first.
MB4 on August 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It’s almost entirely ego driven. It’s like the people who stood in line overnight to be the first on their block to be among the first to buy a new iPod or Playstation so they can brag about having one before their friends do.
Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
You don’t have to nuke New Hampshire. They want to be “free,” so fine, kick them out of the Union. See how long they last with their welfare checks and social security.
Wuptdo on August 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
This whole thing is insane. Please, lets go back to nominating conventions (with all their faults). We are well over a year away from the next election and the presidential campaign has been going for a year. Next we will probably have the first 2012 primary in 2009.
duff65 on August 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I don’t think it matters much anyway. These people won’t be able to figure out how to vote once they settle on a date anyway…
sabbott on August 28, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Er, that was Vermont.
baldilocks on August 28, 2007 at 2:38 PM
It used to be that starting primaries in a small state made sense because it made it easier for lesser known candidates to get a splash from an early win. Now that campaigns start as soon as the previous election ends (or sooner in the case of the ThighMaster), and campaigning is done by debates anyway, it really could be some other system.
So why not start the primary with the most closely contested state from the previous election?
pedestrian on August 28, 2007 at 2:41 PM
The carpetbagger in NY is the cause, not Iowa and NH. This whole things boils down to a fight over the electoral college and shifting power in elections from Mayberry to Main Street. Rollerball here we come.
Limerick on August 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I’d like to see a smallest to largest primary system – the states with the least amount of delegates go first, then each week, the next largest states go, etc until Florida, New York, Texas and California at the end. The smallest states need to have their say as well and they get that by making the candidates focus on them first, then the big states last.
Really, how many times have Iowa and or New Hampshire changed the caculus of who the front-runner is. Remember Dean in 2004? Do we necessarily want the larger states to anoint the “front runner” as king (or, uhem, queen) on 5 February?
Alia on August 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I don’t get why the Florida Dems are in such a rush. The illegals and Alzheimer’s patients aren’t going anywhere, and if any of them die before the election, they’ll still vote Dem.
Master Shake on August 28, 2007 at 3:08 PM
So you’d have the states least important in terms of electoral votes in the general election have the most influence by voting first in the primaries?
This does not sound like a good idea. The general election is on one day, so too should the primaries- otherwise we’re going to continue playing this “I wanna be first” nonsense.
Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where it’s written that Iowa and NH get to decide the primary winners. Many, many states are tired of being a complete afterthought in the nomination process. Watchout, BTW, Michigan is trying to move it’s primary in front of Florida.
Clark1 on August 28, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Isn’t it time for Howard Dean to just fade away or something?
saiga on August 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM
A national primary with all States on the same day sounds like a bad idea to me. It would allow the candidates to run a national campaign. I like to see them fight it out a little at a time to smoke out their real personality and character. Some candidates just can’t hang in a “slow and steady wins the race” format. Howard Dean is a good example of that.
saiga on August 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM
JiangxiDad on August 28, 2007 at 4:53 PM
When I was a boy, political parties had their conventions in August and campaigned until November. Three months was plenty!
oldleprechaun on August 28, 2007 at 7:07 PM
I would like to see
(1) One or more states set their primaries to “the same day as the first state primary scheduled”, in other words, whichever day New Hampshire sets as its primary. That would throw the entire primary schedule into chaos,
(2) A system that rotates each state’s primary date, so that every state has a chance to be at the beginning, middle, and end of the primary season, for subsequent presidential elections.
aunursa on August 28, 2007 at 7:34 PM
What does it matter when they vote? It will take them two months to count the ballots.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 29, 2007 at 12:43 AM