Governor Crist supports repeat primary in Florida

It would be nice to have those in Florida capable of playing a role in choosing a Democratic nominee, but some are saying that this is a political move on the part of Republicans to prolong the race between Obama and Clinton to the advantage of the Republican Party Candidate.

Question for debate:

1. Do you believe the aim is just to give the Florida voters a voice? Or is it a move to benefit the Republican Party Candidate?

Do you believe the aim is just to give the Florida voters a voice? Or is it a move to benefit the Republican Party Candidate?

I think it is a good faith effort by Gov. Crist to ensure that his constituents have a fair voice in chosing the next President. Nothing nefarious there at all. If there was, the last thing Crist would do would be to hold another primary election. It would be better for the Republicans if the Democrats went into their convention and ended up in a massive floor fight over whether or not to seat the Florida delegation. Heck, if that happened, I break out the good stuff and just sip and watch. Hell, I might even pay money to see that.


Aquilla

The dems disenfranchized millions with their descision. I really think "Chain Gang" Charlie is trying to let the people of floridas voice be heard. 57 delegates for the dems would have gone to Mrs. Clinton if they had been counted.

Why must it be about anything other than what it is on the face? Half of florida was denied their right to be heard.

edited to remove a typo

And is there a right to vote in a Democratic primary? Or can the party make rules regarding how their primaries work? Are closed primaries unconstitutional? Are those who do not register as party members disenfranchised when they are prevented from voting in a particular primary?

None of these questions have anything to do with your original question.... But, I'll answer the anyway.

No. Yes. No. No.


All that Crist is saying is that he would support holding another primary at state expense if the DNC wants one. Whether that happens or not is up to the DNC, not Gov. Crist. Their choice.


Aquilla

I never said they had anything to do with my original question, they had to do with GuardianAngel's comment about disenfranchisement, which I thought was pretty evident - what with my quoting his statement, and all.

Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the right to vote. So, the "dems" did not disenfranchise "millions with their descision {sic}."

Florida's voters let their voices be heard when their representatives in the State Legislature - pretty much unanimously - voted to violate Democratic Party rules.

That may be all well and good, but your thread addressed the political question of the motives of Governor Crist. Now, if the DNC wants to neglect Democrats in Florida by not giving them a say in who the Democrat candidate is..... Hey, go for it! Works for me. Good luck winning in Florida in the fall. Even that slimeball Howard Dean won't be able to blame this mess on the Republican governor. Although, he'll probably try at some point if he runs out of meds.


Aquilla

Well, I appreciate the reminder of what my thread addresses; if I hadn't created it, I might've forgotten.

Your saying Democrats will vote Republican because their vote in the Democratic primary isn't being counted? Did the Republicans open up their primary to Democrats and nobody told me?

And, not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the Florida State Legislature... that's a Republican Majority, right? It was a Republican that suggested the move, right? It was a Republican bill, right?

More than happy to remind you about what you asked to start this thread. Not that you've answered it as others have. I don't know about the vote or the bill. All I know is that the DNC has been given the opportunity to have another primary in Florida. It's up to them.

As far as what Democrats do in Florida in November if their delegation to the convention isn't seated, I don't know. I doubt it's going to help the Democrat candidate though.


Aquilla

No, the DNC didn't do that, the state party leadership did through their arrogance. They didn't raise one finger of protest when the DNC created the new line-up after a commission study that was created in 2004. The plan was created and the DNC even offered to pay the Florida democrats to switch to a caucus system. The party leadership knew what would happen if they kept on being obstinante, and they got what they asked for. The leadership of the party didn't have to disenfranchise Florida democrats, but ego overtook practicality. What was the other choice? Is a political party not to be ruled by a majority of the states and leadership? Is everyone entitled to go about business willy-nilly? What kind of party do you have then other than a disorganized one?

Gee, a state political party can't make their own decisions about how to select their delegates? They have to check with Big Brother Howard Dean aka Crazy Howie first? How can that be right?

Oh yeah, almost forgot. They're Democrats!


Aquilla

No, what actually happened here was that the Republican majority in the Florida legislature set the date as February 5, in violation of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws in relation to primaries. It is up to the Florida State Legislature to make this decision, not the party leadership. Party leaders in Florida, Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman, and members of the US Congress all lobbied Democratic members of the Florida Legislature to oppose the measure. Four Democratic leaders in Florida's Senate and House introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29 and both were both defeated by the Republican majority. Unfortunately, the bill contained quite a bit of elections legislation, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. Most of Florida's Democratic legislators (who are outnumbered by two to one) ended up reluctantly supported the bill (which the Republican Secretary of State was pushing as a top priority), hoping that things might be hammered out with the Credentials Committee of the DNC. As that won't happen much before the convention itself, it will leave the Florida delegates up in the air for quite some time - and its doubtful whether the Committee will decide in favor of breaching their own rules. (more on this here)

So that's how things stand.

Do you believe the aim is just to give the Florida voters a voice? Or is it a move to benefit the Republican Party Candidate?

While Crist is a contender for the Vice Presidency on the McCain ticket, I doubt it's the later. I'm not even sure I see how this could benefit the Republican candidate. To be honest, I think it would be better for the Dems to leave their choice of candidate up in the air until the August Convention, leaving the McCain campaign to fight on two fronts. If Clinton and Obama could actually manage to start discussing the differences between themselves and McCain, rather than the differences between Hillary and Barack, it could be to the great detriment of Sen. McCain. It would also mean that the GOP would have to start using a lot of their smears of both candidates prematurely, softening their impact - and if the Republican Noise Machine is attacking two candidates for a few months, it would more obvious be a negative campaign. None of that would benefit the Republican candidate.

If the Florida voters are given a voice before the Credentials Committee makes a decision (which is bound to look political whichever way it goes) and there's a clear nominee much sooner than August, that could benefit the Republican Party Candidate by allowing him to focus on one opponent.

I think Gov. Crist's move is aimed at helping the Democratic Party voters - he is not, after all, Jeb Bush.

This just keeps getting better and better. Now the DNC thinks its "rules" supercede those of an elected state legislature and therefore they must "punish those people" because their elected officials didn't want to bend over and spread 'em to Crazy Howie. Anyone want to talk about arrogance?

Aquilla

Ummm... no. Again, as you stated, the party is able to set the rules of its primary, right? You've already acknowledged this to be true. So, the Legislature's decision violated those rules. Where does it say anywhere that the State law overrides the ability of the DNC to establish rules regarding primaries?



Well, unfortunately, they have a Democratic nomination to win, so... I wouldn't look for either one to be doing too much of that while there is still a nomination to win. This is why a longer campaign between Clinton and Obama helps McCain. He can focus on beating down the Democratic platform and if they want to answer, they have to split their focus and risk losing the nomination. You have to win the first battle before moving on to the next one. McCain doesn't have to fight on two fronts... the difference between Obama and Clinton is not that great.



Despite the possibility that Aquilla may once again tell me that my questions have nothing to do with this, I feel it important to say again that nobody was disenfranchised.

Uhhh... maybe because the state is picking up the tab for the election, 20 something million. Kinda seems to me that if they're paying for it, they should have a say on when it happens. But, that's just me.



Well, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.......


Aquilla

Okay, but where does it say anywhere that State law overrides the ability of the DNC to establish rules regarding primaries?


It might be a swan.

It doesn't. But states clearly have the right to decide the time and date for state elections. If the DNC doesn't like the time and date chosen, too bad so sad. If they refuse to seat the Florida delegation to their convention, fine with me. That's up to them. What effect that has on the general election in November is unknown. But, it will be interesting to see.






I suggest you brush up a little bit on your ornithology. You can do that here.


Aquilla

I don't recall saying anything different. This doesn't mean that States are immune to the consequences of that decision. In this case, a decision made by Republicans. Democratic leaders attempted to keep from breaking the DNC rules, but the Republicans blocked that attempt.





Or you can brush up on your Hans Christian Andersen.

Taxonomically, while ducks and swans may be of the same family, they aren't the same species. Cygnets, however, may, superficially, look like a duck and walk like a duck.

But, this has nothing to do with the questions I put forth for debate. *honk*

The decision on whether or not to seat the Florida Delegation at the Democrat National Convention will be made strictly by Democrats. Republicans will have no voice in that at all. The consequences of that decision..... Who knows.

Film at 11.


Aquilla

Who passed the original ruling that the votes would not count? That was the DNC, right? That is controlled by the Democrats, right? So, unless you are suggesting that the evil right wing conspiracy has now gone so far as to control the DNC itself, then wouldn't that be the place to start?

Do you believe the aim is just to give the Florida voters a voice? Or is it a move to benefit the Republican Party Candidate?

I believe there's a nit-picking campaign on to make the Democratic Party look bad. This might be part of the scheme, but it sure looks silly. Kind of like accusing the Democrats of having super deligates while the Republicans also have super deligates. Shock! The two major parties have rules. Who knew.

What happens with Florida is Florida's concern. What happens with the Democratic Party is the Democratic Party's concern. Why the state legislature tried to push up the Florida primary is obvious -- lots of states would like to be as important as Iowa.

Excuse me . . .



No really, some people think Iowa gets way more attention than it deserves. There's a thread of logic to that, but the truly important things happen after the conventions. If anything this nit-picking campaign is encouraging people to better understand how politics work in this country. A good amount of it is silly, other things are deadly serious.

I personally don't care what Florida wants as the Democratic nominee. I care about Colorado, and we don't have primary elections. We have coffee-and (whatever) caucuses. It's a lot cheaper than elections and accomplishes about the same thing.

I also don't personally believe that it'll make a difference in November who runs as the Democrat. The Republicans have had their swag at running the country, so now its time for Change

Seems to have sticking power, or as they say, resonance.

I see, so it's the DNC's fault because it actually enforced its rules. Oh, silly me. I mean, we all know that rules exist for no reason, right? Silly rules. We should just do away with them.

Good partisan barbs devoid of facts or hyperlinks, so let me lay it down proper.

First off, no individual state has the right to run the national organization. Certainly you aren't implying they should. I find it very interesting that you didn't post about similar RNC warnings to states not to break the Feb.5th primary/caucus rule. Now I'm not knocking you on that, a political party has the right to determine the rules based on the concept of majority rules. So, should chaos reign?



A bylaws and rules committee has the right to determine their respective obligations and duties regarding the political party. An angry few can't negate their decisionmaking and if we ran things according to that standard, then nothing in this country, let alone a given party, would get done.

So are decision made by the party chair or is it by a more diverse bunch of people? The active members of the DNC bylaws and rules committees are are state elected and state party officials. The RNC also has a bylaws and rules committee. What argument could you put forward that would be convincing that party's rules and bylaws committee should not call the shots?