The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Florida and Michigan have very different circumstances and should be looked at separately.

Florida: The REPUBLICAN state congress changed the date for the primary and the Dems had no choice. Therefore, the Dems there should not be punished. All of the candidates were on the ballot. Therefore, their delegates should be seated as is.

The Dems all signed on to the bill and could have made alternative arrangements to hold a caucus without any trouble. They could also have gotten separate approval to have a primary later just like they're doing now. The mail-in primary that they seem to be working on will have to be approved by the state legislature. The Republicans sanctioned Florida as well and it's only because that nominee is decided that they're not fussing.

Finally, you have the same name recognition problem that you do in Michigan. Add to that Hillary's "I'm not campaigning here but oh by the way we'll have a party afterwards and I'll get your delegate seated" announcement the day before and I'm not thrilled with it either way.

Michigan doesn't appear to be working forward in the same way Florida has, but they were both struck, along with all the Super Tuesday states, with a "NO I WANT TO BE FIRST" syndrome.

Originally Posted by honeychile

Just so I'm not misunderstood - I have always been upset that I live in one of the last states to hold their primary, when tiny little Vermont and places like that make or break so many candidates. Come on, we have 187 delegates to their 23 delegates! I know that I'm far from the only person who feels somewhat disenfranchised by the lateness of our primary - which obviously spurred Michigan and Florida to push theirs up.

In a perfect world, there would be 5 Super Tuesdays, two weeks apart, with an equal amount of high and low delegates in each match. But it's never going to happen - or not in our lifetimes, anyway.


Another question: If they hold a new primary in Michigan and in Florida, what about the people who have died between January and the new primary?

I don't think Vermont really makes or breaks candidates, and since the primaries used to start in March I don't know why we should be expected to be finished with them anyway. It's ironic that the state's that pushed so hard to be first on Super Tuesday have actually mattered less than the ones who didn't move theirs forward.

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

They can keep track of who voted in the Republican primary and not allow them to vote again. That wouldn't be that difficult. It was clearly noted which one we voted in that day. If they didn't vote in the Republican primary, then they would be welcome to participate in a caucus.

Michigan is trying, but the question of "Who is going to pay for it?" keeps coming up and it stalls there. This state is in a pretty major recession (bordering on depression, IMHO) so funds are scarce all the way around.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

AGDee - I agree. Poor Florida Democrats - the Republican legislature and governor get to decide your primary dates???

The legislatures of all states get to decide the primary dates, generally speaking.

In Florida, it was a repub-majority legislature, but like Drolefille said, the Dems in the legislature went along with it as well. And I don't think they should be seated as is. Many Florida residents didn't even vote because the election was thought of as a beauty contest. And no one campaigned in the state. I think the results would have been different if $$$ and time had been poured into Florida. Who knows? Edwards might have been in a different position today. There should be a do-over.

I agree with AGDee about Michigan, though.

[KappaKittyCat]

The latest proposal for a do-over is for mail-in ballots in both states. And before you get all up in arms about the security of that, keep in mind that Oregon has voted by mail for years.

I actually like this idea because it doesn't disenfranchise the voters. While I agree that selecting one's party's presidential candidate isn't a Constitutionally protected right, I think that in such a hotly contested election as this one, it's the morally correct thing to do to seek the input of all Democrats for the selection of their candidate. And I think that the state parties should have to pay for it so this doesn't happen again.

That being said, I think we need to have a better system for determining who votes when in the primary. What do folks think of a lottery?

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by scbelle

The legislatures of all states get to decide the primary dates, generally speaking.

In Florida, it was a repub-majority legislature, but like Drolefille said, the Dems in the legislature went along with it as well. And I don't think they should be seated as is. Many Florida residents didn't even vote because the election was thought of as a beauty contest. And no one campaigned in the state. I think the results would have been different if $$$ and time had been poured into Florida. Who knows? Edwards might have been in a different position today. There should be a do-over.

I agree with AGDee about Michigan, though.

I disagree about Florida's delegates being seated as is. The National Media and the Dems might be saying that no one campaigned in Florida, but honestly that would be a lie. Local Media often reported Hillary's campaigning efforts of visiting the state and private fund raisers prior to her "forgetting" that she signed that petition a year before. Also local democratic groups did campaign for her while Obama's people sat back and obeyed the decision.

Now I am not an Obama supporter, in fact I am one of those evil Republicans whose party messed up the election because we wanted our votes to count!

Counting the delegates as is in Florida would not be fair to the voters in this great State. I also think it is unfair for the State to have to pay for another election. If the DNC could not figure out that they would need hte delegates before hand, they should pay for it.

If they don't pay for at least part of it there will be no make up election, and the result will be an already upset and disgruntled group of voters that will help to turn Florida into a Red state come Nov!

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The Dems all signed on to the bill and could have made alternative arrangements to hold a caucus without any trouble. They could also have gotten separate approval to have a primary later just like they're doing now. The mail-in primary that they seem to be working on will have to be approved by the state legislature. The Republicans sanctioned Florida as well and it's only because that nominee is decided that they're not fussing.

Finally, you have the same name recognition problem that you do in Michigan. Add to that Hillary's "I'm not campaigning here but oh by the way we'll have a party afterwards and I'll get your delegate seated" announcement the day before and I'm not thrilled with it either way.

Michigan doesn't appear to be working forward in the same way Florida has, but they were both struck, along with all the Super Tuesday states, with a "NO I WANT TO BE FIRST" syndrome.


I don't think Vermont really makes or breaks candidates, and since the primaries used to start in March I don't know why we should be expected to be finished with them anyway. It's ironic that the state's that pushed so hard to be first on Super Tuesday have actually mattered less than the ones who didn't move theirs forward.

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iowa's caucus the first of the primaries, or at least one of the first? It was Howard Dean's behavior after the 2004 Iowa caucus that killed his chances at the Presidency. So, yes, there IS a huge factor in being among the first, because the money's still there, and is still able to be raised for the winners.

I agree completely with the rest of your post.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iowa's caucus the first of the primaries, or at least one of the first? It was Howard Dean's behavior after the 2004 Iowa caucus that killed his chances at the Presidency. So, yes, there IS a huge factor in being among the first, because the money's still there, and is still able to be raised for the winners.

I agree completely with the rest of your post.

IA and NH are first. I'd be a pretty big fan of some sort of regional system where the country is split into five or ten state regions and a state from each region has a primary every other week - it seems like there'd be more regional national exposure.

I've always thought the whole Dean scream thing was extremely overplayed, and he did keep trucking in that race through the Wisconsin primary which was almost a month after Iowa.

I also would like to add I think the whole caucus system is a load of crap - I was elected a delegate at my local caucus only to find out that the party leadership reallocated me as an alternate delegate - lame. I spent two hours yesterday morning waiting to find out if I'd be seated.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iowa's caucus the first of the primaries, or at least one of the first? It was Howard Dean's behavior after the 2004 Iowa caucus that killed his chances at the Presidency. So, yes, there IS a huge factor in being among the first, because the money's still there, and is still able to be raised for the winners.

I agree completely with the rest of your post.

You said Vermont, not Iowa, and Vermont just voted along with Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island!). Are you thinking of New Hampshire the first primary and second contest of the entire season?

[honeychile]

Well, the multi-quote function isn't working here this morning...

GP, I am so with you on this. Five Super Tuesdays, then get ready for November.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You said Vermont, not Iowa, and Vermont just voted along with Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island!). Are you thinking of New Hampshire the first primary and second contest of the entire season?

I stand corrected - I did mean New Hampshire. Unless I have some Ben & Jerry's in front of me, I confuse the two.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Florida: The REPUBLICAN state congress changed the date for the primary and the Dems had no choice. Therefore, the Dems there should not be punished. All of the candidates were on the ballot. Therefore, their delegates should be seated as is.

Okay, I very much disagree with this characterization of Florida.

First, just because a state legislature is made up of a majority of another party doesn't mean the state should be held unaccountable. If democrats are angry about what happened, what a great reason to reorganize themselves and petition the representatives to change it for next time. Or else maybe they should have done something beforehand and not just after the race heated up and they realized that "oh my gosh, this primary is actually important and worth fighting over."

Secondly (and more importantly, in my mind) only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot in florida, whereas every other candidate did as the DNC requested and took their name off of the ballot. Additionally, there has been rumors that Clinton DID lightly campaign in that state, and then after she won she was in Florida and declared it her victory.

This isn't a case of disenfranchisement. If either Florida or Michigan wanted their vote to count they should have made sure they followed the rules. Florida democrats, no matter what party their representatives were, should have organized themselves a long time ago if they were so concerned about their delegates counting. It isn't like this predicament was a surprise.

I personally hope the DNC doesn't back down or divides the delegates evenly. If there are "second chances" like this it will just mean there is less incentive for any other state to follow the rules or trust that when the DNC gives out rules at the beginning of a race, that they will stay the same throughout the race.

[KAPital PHINUst]

While this isn't the YouTube clip I was alluding to on Friday, this clip is as good, if not better than the original one I was telling you about.

And best of all, Ron Paul addresses some of Drolefille's and Nittany's issues they have been expressing concerning Ron Paul.

Bottom line: From Ron Paul himself, he is NOT dropping out.

Case closed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9E3TIbRNU

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

While this isn't the YouTube clip I was alluding to on Friday, this clip is as good, if not better than the original one I was telling you about.

And best of all, Ron Paul addresses some of Drolefille's and Nittany's issues they have been expressing concerning Ron Paul.

Bottom line: From Ron Paul himself, he is NOT dropping out.

Case closed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9E3TIbRNU

Everyone can take what they wish from the above as well as this from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ch#cnnSTCVideo

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

While this isn't the YouTube clip I was alluding to on Friday, this clip is as good, if not better than the original one I was telling you about.

And best of all, Ron Paul addresses some of Drolefille's and Nittany's issues they have been expressing concerning Ron Paul.

Bottom line: From Ron Paul himself, he is NOT dropping out.

Case closed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9E3TIbRNU

You're grasping onto semantics, which is you're right. But he as much as says this is a crusade now, not a campaign. At 2:35, when pressed, he said in terms of overcoming delegates and admitting that John McCain has the nominating number, he said "so in that way, it's over." What he keeps saying is that he feels "obligated" to still go see his supporters in the states that have upcoming primaries, he thinks people have the right to still cast a vote for him if they want to, all of that is much different than saying "I'm still in this race, and darn it, I'm going to win it!"

And don't misunderstand me, I actually like that his presence might keep McCain from making very deep inroads into "unifying" the party behind him. The more Paul splinters the GOP, the happier I am. The issue I initially took with you is your stalwart stance that he's not giving up whatsoever and the campaign is marching toward a still-possible victory at the convention. He himself has said that is not the case. What he's got going now, though, is a free pre-order book tour that I'm sure will pay off for him down the line. But keep the faith if you like, Kap, it's certainly you're right.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by skylark

Secondly (and more importantly, in my mind) only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot in florida, whereas every other candidate did as the DNC requested and took their name off of the ballot. Additionally, there has been rumors that Clinton DID lightly campaign in that state, and then after she won she was in Florida and declared it her victory.

This isn't a case of disenfranchisement. If either Florida or Michigan wanted their vote to count they should have made sure they followed the rules. Florida democrats, no matter what party their representatives were, should have organized themselves a long time ago if they were so concerned about their delegates counting. It isn't like this predicament was a surprise.

Obama, Edwards and Kucinich were all on the Florida ballot and received votes as you can see here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#FL

And, I do believe it's disenfranchisement if you vote and are told that your votes do not count. I've let the Michigan Democratic Party know how I feel, I'm not one to keep my mouth shut but the reality is, I have very very little control over them. Reality is, none of us have much control over any of it. TPTB have the real control.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

You're grasping onto semantics, which is you're right. But he as much as says this is a crusade now, not a campaign. At 2:35, when pressed, he said in terms of overcoming delegates and admitting that John McCain has the nominating number, he said "so in that way, it's over." What he keeps saying is that he feels "obligated" to still go see his supporters in the states that have upcoming primaries, he thinks people have the right to still cast a vote for him if they want to, all of that is much different than saying "I'm still in this race, and darn it, I'm going to win it!"

And don't misunderstand me, I actually like that his presence might keep McCain from making very deep inroads into "unifying" the party behind him. The more Paul splinters the GOP, the happier I am. The issue I initially took with you is your stalwart stance that he's not giving up whatsoever and the campaign is marching toward a still-possible victory at the convention. He himself has said that is not the case. What he's got going now, though, is a free pre-order book tour that I'm sure will pay off for him down the line. But keep the faith if you like, Kap, it's certainly you're right.

^^^^^^Agree and co-sign.