2 MORE TO SNUB STATES

The New York Post ^ | September 2, 2007

[Artemis Webb]

This is all just posturing on the part of the “also rans”. Hillary has the nomination sewn up and nothing short of Divine intervention (Las Vegas odds makers give extremely LOW odds on Divine intervention) is going to change that.

[HIDEK6]

but he prefers to be the Gorecle and profit from his new found global status.

I doubt that he even will vote in 2008.

[stainlessbanner]

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.

[ReignOfError]

A party primary (or caucus) chooses delegates to the party convention. Period. That's what it's there for. The state can set its election date without discussing it with the party, as Florida has done. The party can then choose not to certify or seat the delegates chosen in that election. That is what is happening. If Florida does not back down, what will most likely happen is that the state Democratic Party will hold caucuses. The Republicans will likely follow suit. They have the right to do so.

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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Tradition!

[ReignOfError]

>The question that comes to my mind is, how easy is it for Dems to jump registration and vote in the Rep. primary?

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.

[ReignOfError]

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.

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."

[LexBaird]

That and a buck fifty will get you a cuppa joe.

[LexBaird]

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.

[Grizzled Bear]

Democratic leadership has flawed logic.

---

Didn’t we say the same thing last fall?

[Grizzled Bear]

lib/dems just disefranchising the more important lib/dems in certain states such as florida!!!!

---

Quick, someone tell Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that the reason they’re snubbing Michigan is because of all the black voters in Detroit!

I’d love it if the DNC had to pay a shake down fee!

[AmericanMade1776]

ha...

[AmericanMade1776]

dems wrote: Late last night it was reported that Hillary will also join the others and submit to the DNC rules.

Hillary Submits....now there is a headline!