Skip to comments.2 MORE TO SNUB STATES
Posted on 09/02/2007 4:29:37 AM PDT by AmericanMade1776
Barack Obama and John Edwards yesterday joined three other Democrats planning to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries. Their pledge leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton alone in planning to compete in Florida and Michigan.
"It's become clear that Gov. [Howard] Dean and the Democratic National Committee have put together a presidential nomination process that's in the best interests of our party and our nation," Obama said.
The two men, along with Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, have signed a pledge circulated by Democratic leaders of the four states that have party approval to hold early contests - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
It says they won't compete in other states that vote before Feb. 5, as Florida and Michigan plan to do.
"Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Screaming Howard Dean leads the Idiot Parade of Democrat Candidates for President.
Last night’s news in Florida told about how this is going to lead to a big drop in donations for the democrats from Florida.....
Democratic leadership has flawed logic.
Just an honest guess....but I think this act of stupidity that they’ve shown over the past two weeks...have lost them 25,000 Florida Democratic votes in next years election. And if they continue...they could lose 100,000 hard core democrats. Even the states around Florida are looking at this....and shaking their heads.
For those who remember the 1860 Democratic party meeting...it was a huge issue....in Charleston....where the Alabama delegation just plain walked out and the meeting could not carry on. They met a month later...with puppets running the show...to get Douglas on the Democratic ticket (he was supposed to be the easy winner of the Charleston meeting). The south got upset after the 2nd convention...went down the street and had a short meeting where a totally different Democrat was put up for their runner. Smell a comparison here? Lincoln really didn’t win that easily...the Democrats simply upset alot of folks in 1860’s Charleston meeting...and we are repeating that same scenario.
Hillary positioning herself to be 'independent' of party politics.
Hillary of course be the nominee for the Democrats, but the Democratic Party will suffer by this.
2 MORE TO SNUB STATES
lib/dems just disefranchising the more important lib/dems in certain states such as florida!!!!
Bad quote. Makes his statement seem as though he is of the opinion that in the other 46 states (and Washington, D.C.—which shouldn’t have a vote) ideas don’t count, but money does.
It was a bad quote for John Edwards, and for a man who is a lawyer .
Translation--I have spent all of this money and time in these four states and all I have to show for it is third place. The moving up of these various states helps Hillary [as if she needed it] because she has the money and organization to take advantage of the new schedule. All it does is move up her coronation allowing her more time to concentrate on the Reps and November. This "race" was really over before it started. Hillary was the Dem nominee once she announced her candidacy.
Is there a Guinness World Record for understatement?
How did that happen? (rhetorical).
I live in Florida and it warms my heart.
Look, Florida is NOT going to send it’s national electors to cast their votes for (hillary!)
Florida has passed from a swing state into the red column and many in the democrat machine (DNC) see it and so does (hillary!)
The dems are no more going to win Florida than we are going to take NJ. we aren’t but thats another story
The huge mistake they are making is in backing - Their donations and the interest of the constituents in and from Florida will be dropping like a rock as democrat voters here rankle under yet another incredibly insulting snub from NE pinhead liberals who haven't yet understood that its a new day and their time is over.
The NE states are generally losing population and electors while Southern states such as Florida are gaining population at breathtaking speed as those dissatisfied citizens move out.
Florida will officially be the 3rd largest state after the next census - too late for 08 - and the next chairman that (hillary!) pushes for will attempt to rectify the situation but it isn’t going to help them in 08.
I'd call it an oxymoron :)
Rules don’t apply to HRC...
Talk about expected election fatigue now...
Leave NH and Iowa as is, and divvy up the states into a number of "super Tuesdays", trying to get the populations more or less equal, or weighting the first with small states, and the last with the big states.
There will be a need for candidates to campaign in the small states, as well as the big states at the end.
Of course, that would smack of "fairness", and might not be compatible with a number of political playbooks.
IIRC, Drudge said last Sunday that the FL move was wanted by Hillary & Co. to give her a big win after her expected losses in Iowa and NH.
(hillary!) was the nominee one day after Bush was elected in 04 and I wrote that way back then that they had nobody else except a rehash of the same old losers who lost before.
The clintons are proven winners against us, and bill will soon be the media darling until the election.
And after, if and when (hillary!) captures the WH back for the clintons and the liberal flag.
Based on data, the MSM has allocated twice as much coverage to the Dem race as compared to the Rep primary, which really is only competitive race. Once Hillary wins the first primaries, the MSM will be agog about her choice for VP with the Rep race being more of afterthought relegated to the inside pages of the newspaper.
The GOP is almost certain to follow suit. If someone doesn't rein in this race-to-be-first, we'll start holding primaries before this Christmas and have the nominees locked in by next Valentine's Day.
Actually, snubbing Michigan may be a windfall for the Republicans. While Michigan has had a shrinking population over the years and is slated to lose another congressional seat or so in th next census, this MAY hopefully swing more people to paint this blue state red.
I’m hoping enough of my fellow voters are angry enough about the poor economy in the state and now the Dems snubbing the state, that they’ll come to their senses and vote not Democrat.
Late last night it was reported that Hillary will also join the others and submit to the DNC rules.
Now these dems who announced early are castigating the states who changed their primaries in order to accomadate the early announcing dems. Man, these people are get stupider by the minute.
I think the national DNC needs to punish Florida and Michigan even more by announcing that they won’t put the eventual party nominee on the ballot in those states.
I have a radical notion. Three primaries per week, every Tuesday, for 18 weeks. In alphabetical order. That’ll mix up the large and small states and the regions, though all the back-and-forth will increase the carbon footprints of the campaigns. And it will suck for voters in West Virginia and Wyoming.
As an alternative, stack the candidates’ home states near the top of the calendar, giving them their best shot at the “favorite son” vote; failing to win the home folks will shake out the weaker candidates early. The other states can draw lots.
The thing is, everyone acts like the “traditional” fist-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire goes back to the founders. It wasn’t until Kennedy that a candidate ran in all 50 sates, and it wasn’t until after Carter that most of the delegates were picked in primaries and caucuses.
Before the ‘70s, most of the delegate seats were doled out by elected officials and party bosses in each party in each state. The notion of primaries as an integral part of the democratic process is actually pretty recent. Even today, third- (and fourth-, fifth-, sixth- ...) party candidates are chosen at party conventions without any public balloting.
What changed? In part, racist southern Democrats abusing the system. in the “Solid South” days, it was easier to elect a yellow dog than a Republican. When the law finally got around to guaranteeing, in a serious way, that black citizens be allowed to vote, the Democratic Party in the several states said that it was a private organization, and as such had a right to keep its membership all-white. The Democratic nominee was a near-certain winner in November. So blacks had won the right to vote ... but not when it really mattered.
The courts ruled, and rightly so, that the party primaries were part of the democratic process. Political parties might have a legitimate claim to be private organizations, but when their “private” proceedings determine who will appear on the November ballot, they’re intertwined with the state. At that point, they become an integral part of the electoral process, and denying access to that ballot is tantamount to robbing citizens of their right to vote. It was a transparent sham that the courts could read right through.
So the primary system as we know it today has really been tried seven or eight times; no wonder we’re still hashing out the details. And since most of the players in these negotiations are either candidates or states, each trying to maximize their own short-term tactical advantage rather than ensure a long-term, fair and just system for everyone nationwide, we can hardly be surprised that the result is such a muddle.
With the power of Clinton, Inc. behind her, she can make the party come to her.
Absolutely. She will now be able to marginalize the Dean Democratic Party, and take over the leadership without a vote.
Apparently the GOP may have to deal with this situation also. Seems some states keep trying to move their primaries ahead of the schedule the RNC wants them to use.
Hillary has now jumped on the band wagon. She’ll follow DNC rules... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1890037/posts
Funny. I read this differently. Just before the primary Dean will change his mind. Since all the other candidates haven't campaigned there Hillary will stand alone to win the states. A virtual shoe-in for her heinousness.
Let the Dems stay away from Florida in the primary. Let the Republicans campaign here and build some momentum going into the general election.
Actually, on second thought, just who do these parties think they are, telling states when they can and cannot hold elections?
I’d say let the states choose, and if the parties snub them, fine. Then it’s time for reform.
I think the States should be divided into 5 regions of 10 states each. On ten consecutive Tuesdays, starting the first one in February, one state in each region holds a primary. The order of the states within each region is randomly chosen each primary season.
I think this would end early campaigning, as you never know quite where the first primaries will be, and force the candidates to appeal to more diverse, national interests, instead of things like corn ethanol subsidies and retiree pensions concerns in traditional "early" states.
I guess this is one way to make sure hellary is the nominee.
The question that comes to my mind is, how easy is it for Dems to jump registration and vote in the Rep. primary? Given the NYC type retirees in SoFL, that could spell an easy Guiliani win from crossovers.
And here’s another question: If the Primaries are run by Party rules, for Party purposes, why are the taxpayers picking up the tab for the elections?
There should be four regional primaries, IMO, after IA and NH have their elections (last two weeks of January). There should be a Southern (Southern states and TX) primary conducted the last Tuesday of February. A Western primary conducted the last Tuesday of March. A Northern primary (Midwest states) conducted the last Tuesday of April. And an Eastern (New England states) primary conducted the last Tuesday of May.
And yet John Edwards has no ideas and way too much money. How ironic.
Actually, I like your idea better. But IA and NH should still go first by tradition. So that means 5 regions with 9 or 10 states in them.
Why? What makes them special? Why not Vermont and Nebraska?
I doubt that he even will vote in 2008.
Seward thought he locked in the nomination. Lincoln’s campaign manager (Davis?) made some last minute deals to seal it. The Dems fractured. I wonder if the conservative movement might do the same with the GOP someday soon.
So the states snub the parties, and the parties snub the states, and so on. The states also control who appears on the ballot -- so take this brinksmanship to its absurd end, and come November 08, Florida voters could walk into the booth to choose between the Libertarian and the Green candidates. That is within Florida's rights, but it wouldn't serve -- or be well-received by -- Florida voters.
Florida is a closed-primary state, so they'd have to re-register as Republicans. That would make them ineligible to vote for the Dems in any down-ballot primaries. I don't see a lot of crossover potential here.
That's not a bad solution. It would certainly correct the skewed influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Reminds me of an old joke: A reporter asks a New Hampshire resident which candidate he supports for president. He answers, "Well, I suppose I can't rightly say. I haven't even met some of them yet."
That and a buck fifty will get you a cuppa joe.
The best thing of all is that it would screw over the professional pundits and “advisors” who are hyperspecialized at winning three or four specific states. Whatever would they do without “conventional received wisdom” to cling to. Imagine if Alaska, Maine, Wisconson, Louisiana, and West Virginia were suddenly the first to vote. Or NY, CA, TX, MI, and VA.
Democratic leadership has flawed logic.
Didn’t we say the same thing last fall?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.