• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Florida Dem Primary Mess

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
We heard much comment about Florida's decision to move up it's primary and how it's all the Repub's fault because they control the legislative branch.

Well. last night saw an interesting piece on this (I can't recall if it Olbermann's show or another?). They had the FL Dem leader from the Senate and the Dem party chairwoman. Surprise surprise. The Dem Senator admitted he submitted the bill to move the primary up, he said while true the Repubs control Congress, the Dem legislators voted unanimously for his bill and that they had the support of the Dem party chairwoman.

So, this portrial of the "poor" Dems in FL being punished for something forced upon them, and completely against their will, by the Repub controlled Congress is inaccurate.

Since I can't recall which news program I saw this on, and I don't have time to check all the website and search, I posted the below. It's from a DNC memeber who was involved in the Florida Dem process of moving up the primary against the party rules.


Link

Link

This from an email by Jon Ausman, a Florida representative of the Democratic National Committee, who is critical of Florida Democrats aiding Republicans in moving the primary date up to Jan. 29th.


1.Florida Democratic Legislators sponsored the
bill to move the primary to January 29th;

2.Florida House Democratic Legislators voted in
committee three times for the bill to move the primary to January 29;

3.All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator
vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29; and,

4.Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber
stated, after receiving a call from DNC Chair asking for help in
opposing setting the primary date before February 5, "I don´t
represent Howard Dean."

5.Florida House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber
stated, after offering an amendment to move the primary to February
5th, that the only reason he offer it was "to show that there was an
attempt to state within the Democratic Party rules." The amendment
failed on a voice vote with no debate being offered.

6.Florida Senate Democratic Legislators voted in
committee to move the primary to January;

7.Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller
stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move
the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair
Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed
on a voice vote without any debate.
Fern
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Good for them. Why is it a bad thing to move primary of your state? What exactly is so special about Iowa and New Hampshire that is sacred to other states?
Florida should insist that its original vote be counted, IMO.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: FernAre FL Democrats at Least partially to Blame?
Partially to blame? I'd say they're completely to blame. Fl Democrats were given multiple options to remedy the situation, the Dnc even offered to pay for a later date, but Florida wanted the attention and money that came with an early primary.

 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Good for them. Why is it a bad thing to move primary of your state? What exactly is so special about Iowa and New Hampshire that is sacred to other states?
Florida should insist that its original vote be counted, IMO.
Florida's democrats would be poorly served by doing so. Florida's Clinton supporters less so.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Good for them. Why is it a bad thing to move primary of your state? What exactly is so special about Iowa and New Hampshire that is sacred to other states?
Florida should insist that its original vote be counted, IMO.
If a state doesn't like Iowa and New Hampshire going first, then take the issue up with the Dnc. They shouldn't just arbitrarily move you're primary up and then whine like little babies when you're punished.

 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,949
0
76
Why not do it based on the order in which the states were admitted into the union?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: nonameo
Why not do it based on the order in which the states were admitted into the union?
Because there's nothing 'fair' or 'democratic' or 'reasonable' about the order of the primaries, or the two-party system in general.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: nonameo
Why not do it based on the order in which the states were admitted into the union?
Interesting.

But that would make h3lluva a "Super Tuesday" to kick off the primary season.

The 13 original colonies all joined on the same day I believe. Nope, I'm wrong:

The 1st 15 states to join.

1 Delaware December 7, 1787
2 Pennsylvania December 12, 1787
3 New Jersey December 18, 1787
4 Georgia January 2, 1788
5 Connecticut January 9, 1788
6 Massachusetts February 6, 1788
7 Maryland April 28, 1788 About
8 South Carolina May 23, 1788
9 New Hampshire June 21, 1788
10 Virginia June 25, 1788
11 New York July 26, 1788
12 North Carolina November 21, 1789
13 Rhode Island May 29, 1790
14 Vermont March 4, 1791
15 Kentucky June 1, 1792

A big problem with that idea is that the later states would never have any say in the nominee. Too may big states first in line.

Fern
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: nonameo
Why not do it based on the order in which the states were admitted into the union?
I like that idea.

personally, I think significantly less of states that weren't part of the original 13 colonies and think their votes should matter less. :p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY