Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

For a long time now, I have been saying that the stars are aligned for the Democrats to win the White House in 2008. All we have to do is to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. Right about now, I feel like I am picking some of Dick Cheney's buck shot out of my toes.

This stupid fight about the primary date in Florida and the DNC yanking Florida's delegates and now our idiotic candidates pledging to not campaign (but to continue to raise money) in Florida is making me absolutely crazy.

What to do about it?  Follow me...

Cross Posted from Florida Kossacks

Blog Florida Blue

This is not what we should be focusing our attention on. In a week where the Republicans are imploding (Alberto Gonzales and Larry Craig resign, John Warner retires), Dems should be standing back and let the Republicans continue to hang themselves. Instead we are getting headlines like this:

Democrats boycott Florida race

Here I have been trying to argue that what matters most is that Floridians voices will be heard. Now the Democratic candidates have come out and said that they won't be listening. Here is what John Edwards (who I have been supporting) has to say

"Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money. These are places where voters get to look the candidate in the eye and measure their policies, ideas, and integrity."

What we have been arguing all along is that Florida voters are hungry for a chance to:

look the candidate in the eye and measure their policies, ideas, and integrity

at a time when it still matters in the nomination process. Floridians with money have long had that opportunity. Now we were going to have the same chance to measure the candidates as Iowa and New Hampshire have had. And we think that we probably could do a better job picking the Democratic nominee than Iowa and New Hampshire have done.

Here is a "history lesson" that has been circulated among Florida's Democratic leaders:

Of the last nine Presidential elections in which the Democratic candidate was chosen by the current primary system (excluding 1996 when President Clinton faced no real opposition in the primary), our candidate has only twice been elected President. Those candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both lost the Iowa Caucuses. Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary as well.

Also, the Iowa Caucus has picked a loser every time since it came to
prominence in 1972. Since 1952, the New Hampshire Primary has only picked one Democratic President when the nomination was contested.

So what do we do now? I say it is about time to start using our influence on the candidates campaigns. Let's pick up the drumbeat to get these candidates to change their minds and reject this lunacy of boycotting Florida.

If we are ever going to Blog Florida Blue , now is the time to start.

•  What do you say?

  Will you help us?

  Florida Kossacks Rock

  Blog Florida Blue

  by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:54:19 AM PDT

  •  Absoltely not.

    Hold a primary in a way that does not subvert the process that all 50 states agreed to.

    That is what you need to do.

    by rick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:56:21 AM PDT

•  What a mess

  No one wins this fight.  We need a national primary so who goes first no longer matters.  This decision definitely hurts Florida Dems at a time when their support is essential.  <sound of head banging on the table>

  by DWG on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:01:33 AM PDT

  •  They need a rotating Primary

    or no Primary at all but I'm not a fan of a National primary because it would limit the small candidates.

    Or, my personal favorite, is to have schedules drawn up based upon the contestability.  Make the swing states first - If OH is such an important win in the General - shouldn't we want to know which candidate has the most support there BEFORE we choose our candidate?

    Anyways, I think a number of the candidates dropped the ball by refusing to campaign in Florida.

    by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:15:22 AM PDT

    •  With everyone moving up primaries

      It is rapidly becoming a de facto national primary in a three week window from mid January to early February.  It does hurt the small candidates.  By having the race concluded at such an early date, it limits how much candidates can make their case to the public, tipping the process to the candidate with name recognition and big money donors.  I am not sure states strapped for cash will go for an ever changing primary date based on any rotating scheme.  

      by DWG on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:30:48 AM PDT

    •  I think we should vote the issues in primaries

      by ghengismom on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:10:51 AM PDT

  •  Rotating Regional Primary is the way to go.

    Not a winner takes all  (which equals the one with the most advertising $$$ wins) national primary.

    by rick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:58:30 AM PDT

•  I didn't think they could still raise money here

  Am I wrong?

  I think we should encourage every Democrat in Florida to cast a write in vote for Al Gore this Janauary.  We can explain that it's a protest of the unfair primary schedule and the fact that the candidates aren't coming here to campaign.  Taking away our delegates should be punishment enough.

  by Susan S on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:02:08 AM PDT

  •  No

    Party rules specifically allow candidates to continue to fundaraise and attend fundraising events in Florida. They just are not allowed to campaign here.

    Pretty hypocritical isn't it!

    by kansasr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:17:04 AM PDT

    •  Yes n/t

      by FLDemJax on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:50:58 AM PDT

  •  Writing in Al Gore is sounding

    more and more like a better idea all the time.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:20:12 AM PDT

    •  A lot of States have taken away writing in option

      by ghengismom on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:12:48 AM PDT

  •  Wrong

    According to the St. Petersburg Times, "it does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff."

    They can raise money here, and I think that I heard that the bogus resolution from the four state triumpharate specificially allows it, as long as no more than 200 people show up.  In other words, go to Florida and get them to write checks so you can pay off the special interests who control our state's nominating process.  

    It is long past time for the DNC to blow up the two/four-state nominating process.

    by consdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:52:45 AM PDT

    •  What do you think of my idea about Al Gore? n/t

      by Susan S on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:15:18 PM PDT

      •  Al Gore is looking better and better to me

        all the time now!

        Florida Kossacks Rock

        Blog Florida Blue

        by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:13:05 PM PDT

      •  I could get excited about Gore

        He still has image problems to overcome, mainly that I believe America thinks he is more extreme than he is, but I could get a lot more excited about him than the rest of the crew.

        I was a Richardson fan until he decided to be the first to jump on the back of the DNC in their fight against Florida.

        by consdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:14:55 PM PDT

        •  It's really more about giving people an option

          to vote in protest than about support for Gore (although that wouldn't be a bad thing!)

          by Susan S on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:27:46 PM PDT

  •  Another exception

    Not only are they still allowed to fund raise here but they also made an exception for the Univision Spanish language debate.

    by Step Beyond on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:19:14 AM PDT

•  Thats the point ive been making all along.

  Iowa and New Hampshire PICK LOSERS!!!!

  HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

  All these people talk about how they get to "measure the canidates up close" and "ask them tough questions." Well, what have we gotten for all their effort except a  STRING OF LOSERS?

  I agree with you Gatordem. I'd say Florida would be MUCH BETTER at picking a winning president since it is a much more diverse, developed, thriving swing state.

  by brooklynbadboy on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:09:01 AM PDT

  •  I think we would

    likely pick a candidate who is more likely to get elected than small, non diverse states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Anf the idea that you can not do retail politics in Florida is just so much BS. And, the so called "retail politics" events in Iowa and New Hampshire are not so "retail" anymore.  The candidtes are holding events where thousands of people are showing up.  Not much different than what they have gotten in Florida with their small dollar fundraisers.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:19:12 AM PDT

  •  Drink a beer with...

    Yeah, isn't that the deal, that people said they wanted to drink beer more with Bush? (God only knows why, really, but whatever.)

    So kicking the tires really doesn't seem to work that well.

    by AggieDemocrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:14:10 AM PDT

•  It all seems a bit of one-upsmanship, to me.

  All this jockeying to be first, or among the first -- to what purpose?  Money? Some measure of a faux-mantle of approval?  I am not sure what the answer is; I will leave that to others.  But could it be a national primary with all states voting on the same date, so that there is no simplistic notion of supremacy or influencing the national outcome, no more faux hubris?

  As the situation stands, IMO, the losers are the American people -- and isn't that who the political parties and their candidates purport to wish to represent?

  by wgard on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:17:26 AM PDT

  •  It is about actually having a voice

    in selecting our party's nominee. For years now, the nominee has been virtually decided before Floridians get a chance to vote. That's being disenfranchised.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:26:34 AM PDT

    •  You have had a voice, even before...

      In the delegate votes cast.  What you are telling me reinforces my point of a notion of supremacy and influencing the national outcome on the part of a few.  What you are saying is that the decision was already made before Florida had a primary, that the choice of Florida was to only 'go along' with what others had already decided.  Is this a reasonably accurate assessment?

      by wgard on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:32:07 AM PDT

      •  You don't get it

        We had no voice in deciding who the nominee was going to be.

        Yes our delegates cast their votes at the convention.  But who those delegates were going to be pledged to was decided before Floridians even got to vote.  That's a little like Big Brother telling you you can vote for anyone you like, just as long as it is him.

        Florida Kossacks Rock

        Blog Florida Blue

        by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:38:26 AM PDT

        •  Ummm... I think I get it.

          The fact is, your delegates were not committed to any one of the survivors, as I understand it.  Your point is, though, that you should not be relegated to chosing only between the survivors and have no say in the makeup of the survivors' list.

          What do you think of the idea of a primary of all states on the same date?

          (I do understand in this context why you think you were subject to a Big Brother decree, though you were not bound by it... except for the, hmmm, accepted political conventions.)

          by wgard on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:51:59 AM PDT

          •  I'f be open to a national primary

            but I think a better idea is a series of rotating regional primaries.  The different regions would take turns going first.

            And as for accepted political conventions - accepted by whom?

            Florida Kossacks Rock

            Blog Florida Blue

            by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:01:12 AM PDT

            •  Florida and all other states...

              For years and years, election cycle after election cycle... accepted to the extent of no public disagreement until recently.  Does acquescence constitute acceptance?  In this case, I would imagine it does.

              by wgard on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:47:11 AM PDT

              •  We finally got our collective heads

                out of the sand and acquiesce no longer.  So, once again, accepted by whom?

                Certainly not us, and apparently not all the other states who want to move up and have a real say in the nomination process.

                Florida Kossacks Rock

                Blog Florida Blue

                by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:58:04 AM PDT

                •  Ah, now the 'heads' are no longer in the sand.

                  Which brings me back to an earlier idea... why not a single primary in all states on the same date?  That way, there is no advantage of 'timing' to any.

                  I do not subscribe to 'regional' primaries, even on a rotating basis, because the regions would, I think, devolve to the situations we now see with the states (which are, after all, nothing more than 50 different regions), arguing about influence and primacy and the cycle of rotation... casing blame and aspersions... all to the detriment of a national consensus.

                  Am I wrong here?  Or does the 'region' of Florida feel it is being mistreated, not given its due in terms of importance and significance?

                  (I admit to playing the devil's advocate, but unless the questions can be fully answered, I think there is little arguement, other than one that has its roots in wounded pride.)

                  by wgard on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:11:16 AM PDT

            •  Something must be done.

              What's clear is the status quo is unacceptable. I do have a nostalgia for the panoply of primaries in 1968, how the candidates would respond to different sets of concerns from different constituents, while knowing the national media was watching to see if a message wasn't too "tailor-made."

              We haven't had that system in decades, and if we want to hold on to the memory of how it worked then, we have to come up with a proposal--any real solution will require a Constitutional amendment--of how it should work and debate with the supporters of other proposals.

              As for 2008, the good news is that the field is getting it's scrutiny already; people are making their opinions; and I doubt that we'll have accusations of "tainted delegates" because the process was abused.

              by Judge Moonbox on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:17:23 AM PDT

•  Random primaries

  Each presidential year, stick the names of the 50 states in a bag.  Pick them out in random order.  That's the order of primaries.  

  (Obviously, I would really use a bag, there are good psuedorandom number generators out there).

  by plf515 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:57:37 AM PDT

  •  Use The Lotto Machines

    make them help pay for the democratic process. They are random, right?

    by FLDemJax on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:54:32 AM PDT

•  It really doesn't matter

  if the candidates come to visit. Most of us are too busy making ends meet to take time to go stand in some hall to listen to some pol blather on.

  Let them state their positions clearly (ha!) and we will choose. In this day and age, we don't need to troop down to the train station to listen to the pol speak. We get papers, we have computers, we have TVs, etc. We can make up our minds without a handshake.

  Nance

  by Nance on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:06:51 AM PDT

  •  The candidates get on the front page

    of the local papers when they show up in that town.  They talk to the local reporters who write stories that sometimes are witout the slant of the national MSM.

    There are all kinds of good reasons for a candidate to come to your town even if you don't go to see them.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:27:42 AM PDT

    •  Then let's be clear about that

      Fundraising and publicity. Nothing to do with actually listening or answering average citizens.

      If they want to come -- and apparently they still will for the money -- fine. But it's not for purposes of communication. Or are we supposed to believe that our local papers are any less slanted than national ones.

      Nance

      by Nance on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:57:53 AM PDT

•  nope, don't agree

  
  I really don't know why we should be catering to the ego of Florida Democratic Party people or voters above any other.

  That having been said, I despise the de facto corruption in the Party apparatus in Iowa, and to a somewhat lesser degree in New Hampshire, that has resulted from their constant early primary role.

  I think the society and the Parties have become sufficiently internally consistent and homogeneous nationwide that there are about 35 or 40 states that would give similar and nationally representative results in a primary.  I believe Iowa and New Hampshire both belong to those 35-40.  There are a few outliers- mostly small rural states and perhaps Texas.

  So, have a good time with this tempest in a teapot.  Just remember that the rules for 2012 will be different yet again, as politicians try to skew things in favor of their buddies.  In fact, it's all about jockeying to favor one candidate over others.  I hate to say it, but all this upheaval among states about scheduling their primaries looks as if it will have little or zero effect on who the nominee will be this time around.  I think states like Florida would make a better case for themselves- or at least against IA and NH- by pointing out the corruptions and deals in Iowa and New Hampshire they themselves wouldn't get into.

  by killjoy on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:27:28 AM PDT

•  System definitely has problems

  I never knew what went on at the Iowa caucuses until 2004 when some d'kosers live-blogged from the caucuses.  Elderly people brought in with buses and manipulated by giving them cookies!  

  The New Hampshire primary skews to selecting New Englanders.  Kerry, Dukakis, Tsongas - all from neighboring MA - won the NH primary.  Romney looks to have locked up NH early on the R side this time because he's from MA.  I think thats a big problem when the state has such disproportionate influence.  

  by Lois on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:39:08 AM PDT

  •  Nominating New Englanders

    has not done us any good in the Democratic party.  John Kennedy was elected half a century ago, and he needed a Texan on the ticket (and some timely ballot box stuffing in Illinois) to seal the deal.

    Times have changed and we need to change with them.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:01:03 AM PDT

•  Far More Damage from Breaking a Pledge

  Re:

  So what do we do now? I say it is about time to start using our influence on the candidates campaigns. Let's pick up the drumbeat to get these candidates to change their minds and reject this lunacy of boycotting Florida.

  What other way to read that than that the next Democratic nominee (whomever it shall be) is being urged to break a pledge; in other words, to be a liar.

  A "pledge" is not something that lends itself well to "changing minds." A pledge is a solemn vow, a promise, not an off-the-cuff opinion in a state of evolution. For any of the candidates to break the pledge to respect the original rules of the game at this point would weigh poorly on his or her very character and honesty. It would put him or her right down there with Mitt Romney as a supreme flip-flopper and equivocator, weak and dishonest.

  Has it come to even that? Instead of working to fix the Florida delegate selection process some now want to turn the next Democratic nominee into a Pinocchio?

  If Florida voters choose to write-in Al Gore, or anyone else, that seems just fine and within their rights to me. No problem there whatsoever.

  But to ask the next nominee, whoever he or she will be, to sit down and shout "my word means nothing" is to court defeat in more than just one state.

  by viralvoice on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:22:34 AM PDT

  •  How about all the credit

    John Edwards gets for admitting he was wrong about Iraq and changing his mind?

    People make mistakes all the time.  I say it was a HUGE mistake for the candidates to sign this pledge.  They can say that they were misinformed, that it was a rush to judgement or they could say this (my personal favorite) - On reflection, this pledge was a clear case of blackmail by the back room politicos in Iowa and New Hampshire. I will not be blackmailed by any bunch of back room political hacks, even if they are from the two states who get to go first in the nomination process.

    My campaign will decide where we campaign, not anybody else. To do oherwise was a mistake for which I apologize.

    That works for me.  And since it happens to have the extra added advantage of being the truth, it would be hard to call anybody who said that a liar.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:43:55 AM PDT

    •  Pot Calling the Kettle Blackmail

      I sure ain't a "back room political hack" and it seems to me that the Florida legislators - Democrat and Republican - fit that bill as much as anyone with their maneuver to cut in line in front of others.

      The "me, me, me first!" politics we're seeing goes to the extreme of saying "even though the game has already begun we should change the rules."

      It's as if one player told the coach, "I don't agree that I should play second string and so I'm going to take the field instead of the starting quarterback." Any coach that didn't ban that player from the game - or at least keep him on the sidelines - would never win any.

      Where is the democratic (and Democratic) commitment to fair play? If you change the rules now that is patently unfair.

      You are also advocating the disenfranchisement, again, of South Carolina voters, who were placed in the front four this year so that for the first time ever, a state with half its Democratic primary electorate as black voters would get to weigh in early. Since Florida isn't close to half-black in its primary or general electorate, and is a larger state, it seeks to erase or obscure the impact of that moment of history on January 29, when legally Florida could instead go just a week later on February 5th.

      The only blackmail I've seen and heard is on the side of those that say "we won't work to change our delegate selection process at the state level" but hold the Florida electorate hostage by asking others to pay the ransom that allows it to cut in line.

      The gods help those that help themselves. Clean your own house instead of complaining now that the others in the line stood their ground.

      You want delegates and candidate visits? Fix the delegate selection process. You can have a nonbinding primary on January 29 and select your delegates as soon as a week later. Not to do so is to spill your own milk.

      by viralvoice on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:57:52 AM PDT

      •   I did not call you

        a back room political hack.  Unless of course you are one of those who cooked up this idiotic pledge.

        More black voters will be voting in Florida on January 29th than in South Carolina. So will more Hispanic voters and more women voters, more gay and lesbian voters and more white voters.

        Here is something to think about.  The Florida Legislature sets the dates for elections here in Florida.  It is not the Democratic Party or the Republican Party like it is in South Carolina. The Republican dominated state legislature decided to hold the election on January 29th.  The Florida Democratic party, guided by the principle that it wanted the widest possible particpation for the Democratic voters in Florida, decided that the primary election was the method that would get the largest participation. Since the parties do not set election dates in Florida, the only other option available to the FDP would have been a caucus. Caucuses do not get anywhere near the voter participation that primary elections get, so the caucus idea was rejected.

        The Democratic Party Chair in South Carolina has the power to move their primary up, just as the Sount Carolina Republican Party has already done.  They should do that rather than whine about Florida moving in on them.

        Florida Kossacks Rock

        Blog Florida Blue

        by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:19:16 AM PDT

        •  Have it your way, then

          ...and good luck.

          Florida has more voters in those demographic groups because it has more voters overall: but the influence of African-American voters in the Florida primary is far less than it is in South Carolina, where in 2004 they constituted 49 percent of the primary vote. In Florida, the black vote is diluted by other demographics. By your logic California should always go first, and New York second.

          Think of the states as people in line for a concert, or, say, a sporting event: There are four at the front of the line. Two - let's say a white man and a white woman - who have always been in line, and a lot of people like that, they're kind of symbols for the team. But this year they are joined by a black man and a latino woman who also happens to belong to a union.

          Along come two more guys who say: "We're bigger than you, we're richer than you, we've bought up many more of the tickets for the November tour than you will ever see! But we think we should always be at the front of the line, so we're butting in!"

          And the four little guys fight to stand their ground. Now, in which party would the big boys get their way and in which will the little folk win?

          You're trying to be bullies. But the little guys know how to organize and fight to stand their ground.

          You're asking the fourth person in line to cut in front of the third and second, after you've tried to cut in front of him. But he's saying, "no, I believe in fair play, the order in the line was determined long ago." At some point don't you feel at least a tinge of conscience? Or is it just the "me first culture" where you still exist?

          The situational ethics in the statement "but we have more black voters" while ignoring that your black voters have less influence over the results in your state reminds me of how far we still have to go to be a decent society.

          by viralvoice on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

          •  You really don't know much about Florida

            politics.  African Americans have a huge amount of influence in the Democratic Party. The Senate Minortiy leader designate is an African American.  Just a couple of years ago, the House Minority leader was an African American.

            African American votes in my hometown elected Kathy Castor to the US Congress (over a former state Senate Minority Leader, another African American.) We have at least three African American Members of Congress, roughly 1/3rd of our Dem Florida delegation.

            Trust me, African Americans play a very significant role in Florida politics.

            Florida Kossacks Rock

            Blog Florida Blue

            by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:08:17 AM PDT

            •  One-third sounds about right

              With about another third white New York-and-neighboring retirees.

              But one-half is a very different situation.

              Anyway, it's clear that I'm not going to persuade you and you sure aren't going to persuade me. And the primary in 2008 will have an asterix by it that renders it useless for influencing the states that come after it. If you want to ride a dead horse, fine, but no use in continuing to beat it, too.

              by viralvoice on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:18:34 AM PDT

•  Measuring Florida voters

  Sigh.

  Excellent diary, Gatordem.

  "Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money. These are places where voters get to look the candidate in the eye and measure their policies, ideas, and integrity."

  Edwards could be right. This mess is definitely helping me take a look into Edwards' eyes - as well as all of the candidates who aren't waving their pitchforks at the DNC.

  I didn't realize that policies, ideas, and integrity didn't matter to voters in the other 46 states. I'm sure that Edwards' didn't mean it "that way", but it still pisses me off. The other Dem candidates, by their silence and inaction, are complicit. If I were a voter in any one of the other 46 states, I'd be raising my eyebrows at the entire Democratic Party.

  Headlines like the one Gatordem pointed out are just more fuel for the GOP fire. Once again, they will switch the focus away from their own ineptitude and corruption to the idea that Democrats can't govern: after all, if Dems can't take care of their own house, how can we trust them to run the country. The voters from all parties who are on the fence and eager to see the nation take a new direction are paying attention.

  Add me to the progressives who are banging their heads on the table.

  To me, this is far more than Florida Dems being disenfranchised. It is is that the DNC continues to lose focus on what really matters - and that is November 2008.

  To heck with the lot of them. I'm writing in Al Gore and hope that the convention - and the national election - isn't a trainwreck.

  by Gin on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:38:37 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the kind words

    This whole mess just could be all the opening that Al Gore needs to jump into this campaign.  He could campaign in Florida and would be the run away winner of the Florida Presidential Preference Primary that will be held on January 29th, 2008.

    This is something folks both in and out of Florida need to understand.  There will be an election on January 29, 2008. Binding, non binding, whatever. There will be an election.

    Besides the Presidential preference Primary, there will be a hugely important state constitutional amendment regarding proprty taxes on the ballot.  There are a large number of municipalities that are moving their local elections up to that date to save money.  There are plenty of reasons for Democrats in Florida to go to the polls in January. We need to be focusing on that.

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:52:14 AM PDT

  •  What Edwards is saying is

    (and I agree with him) that in a smaller state, the voters can actually meet and spend time with a candidate--one on one.  In fact, all of them can.  The press covers the speaking events, where thousands show up, but that's not all that goes on in those states.  There is a lot of time spent with just a candidate and a voter talking issues.

    Now you can argue that meeting a candidate personally and talking issues for ten or fifteen minutes is no way to pick a President, but you certainly can't argue that it is possible for a candidate to meet and spend ten minutes with every potential Floridian voter, as it is in Iowa and NH.  Its simple math.  And I hope you aren't saying that you'd rather the candidate be selected based primarily on commercials and what the media says about them.

    Until you get money out of the process, having small states first is the only way to give a candidate of limited means, but with a message, a shot.  Just a shot.  Otherwise its all about the Benjamins and you'd get a choice between Hillary and Barack only (not a bad choice, by the way, but I personally like more options at the start of the process).

    Also, to be honest, I'd have more faith in the sincerity of the larger states if, say, Florida and Michigan and California all voted that, say, Ohio be first.  Voting for yourself to be first smacks of ego, not concern for the process.

    by costello7 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:35:01 AM PDT

    •  See, I disagree with that

      I've been to Iowa and New Hampshire for campaigns.  Yes they do the things they do there.  But more and more, it is not in somebody's living room.  It is in a gym or an assembly hall and 500 to 2,000 people show up.

      There is no reason you can not do the same thing in Florida or any other state.  No reason at all.  Lawton Chiles walked the entire state of Florida in his first campaign for the Senate.  The state hasn't gotten physiclly bigger, it just has more people.  Bob Graham did his work days, where he spent a day doing an everyday job along side the person whose job it actually was.  A great way to stay in touch.

      You can do retail politics in Florida.  Most peopple are just afraid to try.

      Florida Kossacks Rock

      Blog Florida Blue

      by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:48:09 PM PDT

  •  "That way"

    No, I don't think Edwards meant it that way.

    I think he meant he wants to get elected.

    Nance

    by Nance on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:01:16 AM PDT

•  I know EXACTLY what you're saying

  By the time the Texas primary rolled around it was, "Here's John Kerry. Now, go sell him."  As someone who thinks voting should be something other than a rah rah opportunity, it was rather disappointing. The 50 State Strategy won't work until 50 states are involved. As for the little candidates, they don't have much going for them the way things are at present.

  by northsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:27:34 AM PDT

  •  Amen.

    I thought Dean wanted to 'Crash the Gates,' but he mindlessly defends the two/four state nominating process.  

    I am glad that my home state (along with Michigan) is fighting to blow up a broken system that gives us weak nominees.  

    We need to move to some kind of regional primary that ensures that the voices of all Americans are heard in the nominating process, not just the voices of a few.

    by consdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:56:52 AM PDT

•  The Republicans are doing much the same thing ...

  ... in cutting the delegations in half for the states that jump the gun.

  The only way to ensure that everyone has this opportunity is to create a system that will keep the race alive longer than three weeks. In moving up for their own piece of the action, in violation of the agreed on calendar, Florida is denying me the right to participate in the process when the issue is still in doubt ... together with any remaining March Tuesday states.

  by BruceMcF on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:39:59 AM PDT

•  You know I disagree

  I'm glad to see you working on this issue even if we disagree.

  I don't think we should pressure candidates to break the pledge. I think we should pressure them to include fundraising. The candidates weren't really campaigning here outside of fundraising anyway. And only Giuliani and Romney have offices and staff here that I know of.

  The big issue to me is getting the votes to matter even in some greatly diminished manner. They should return a few delegates. Not a lot. Just enough that the votes are counted and the winner wins the state.

  Right now the story is that our votes don't count, they don't want to talk to us but they still want our money. The Repubs don't even need to spin or distort the story and it has a very negative impact on the Dem's reputation.

  If we want to counter it, we'd have to go into some long explanation over convention rules, retail politics, DNC, FDP, etc. Which the average voter doesn't give a damn to hear much less waste their time trying to understand. And it still comes down to Dems fighting amongst themselves.

  Now change the story. Give back some delegates. Take away fundraising. Now the story is that Dems still care about your vote but are boycotting the state for the early primary. Much better (although not perfect). If the Repubs want to talk about diminished delegates (and why would they if they get their own) they'd have to explain it to people.

  by Step Beyond on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:01:58 AM PDT

  •  There is no way to sugar coat

    presidential candidates boycotting the state.  That's over the edge. How do you explain that to people?

    Florida Kossacks Rock

    Blog Florida Blue

    by gatordem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

•  Opinion

  A national primary day is really the only fair and political smart thing for this country, but of course, We, the People, are not generally interested in playing fair.  Most are inclined to want to position themselves where their decisions count for more than other people's decisions.

  A National Primary Day puts us all on a level playing field.  Ending campaigning several weeks before primary voting would help this because it would help everyone to reflect on whose message is more memorable (there might be some problems with this, but stay with me).

  Now, how do we account for campaigning and the acquisition of funds to campaign?  Uniform campaign funding underwritten by public taxes? Yeah, I'm hearing the Repugs screaming now. That's just not going to happen.

  So...

  How about following the draft model used by American sports leagues?  The states who have the most voters who vote for losing candidates gets to leave campaigning open longer than those who have more voters casting ballots for the winner.  Bottom quartile of states with losing votes allow candidates to campaign an extra 3 weeks, third quartile 2 weeks, second quartile 1 week, and the states with the best voters don't get to see the candidates at all, in the news or stump speeches, nor may they receive campaign funds after a deadline set one month before National Primary Day.

  National Primary Day occurs 150 days before Elections Day, or July 4th for the 2008 election cycle. Combine it with 4th of July celebrations of our Nation's Independence, or for those with plans for a picnic, hold it on the first weekday prior to or after July 4th.

  I know this may seem dumb to some, but we need to get this view that some state's voters are smarter than other state's, or that politicians are free to gather campaign funds from states without having to work for them. This idea has been floated around, in various forms, for a while. There is some merit to it, even if I've managed to mangle it here.

  by FLDemJax on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:17:28 AM PDT

  •  Doggone It - Omission

    How about following the draft model used by American sports leagues?  The states who have the most voters who vote for losing candidates gets to leave campaigning open longer than those who have more voters casting ballots for the winner.

    should be:

    How about following the draft model used by American sports leagues?  The states who have the most voters who vote for losing candidates in the previous election cycle gets to leave campaigning open longer than those who have more voters casting ballots for the winner.

    by FLDemJax on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:19:55 AM PDT