Beware Charlie Crist

By: relawson
Published On: 3/6/2008 12:40:18 AM

The Governor of Florida (my home state) is now trying to force the party to count Florida delegates - and threatening to remove the Democratic candidate from the ballot.

Previously he had supported a redo, which I also support.  It would give candidates time to campaign and debate in our state.  Now he opposes a redo, and instead wants to force the votes already cast to count.  The problem with this of course is that the rules can't change in the middle of the game.  Also, Hillary was the only one who had a secret campaign here at a time her campaign wasn't suppose to be here.

All I can say fellow Democrats: you did this to yourselves.  You created a system that is not democratic, a system that allows party insiders to trump popular oppinion, and shananigans in Texas with primaries and caucuses.  Party leaders must really believe that the voters are just plain stupid.  Donna Brazil and Howard Dean are apologetic for this.  

And now, of course Charlie Crist and other Florida Republicans are trying to meddle.  They would love to see our party unfold - and a bitter fight to the end.

We need to put an end to this nonsense.  Hillary Clinton should publicly disavow the current Florida and Michigan vote - and demand a redo.  For the party and most importantly for the nation - we need to do it now!


Comments



Hillary supporter (Rebecca - 3/6/2008 2:09:50 PM)
Do the Republicans want Hillary to win? I agree that they would love to see the Party implode.


Things to keep in mind about Florida. (Randy Klear - 3/6/2008 3:14:32 PM)
1. The GOP is punishing Florida at their convention, too. Their rules only call for blocking half the delegates, not 100%, but I'm sure Florida Republicans are bothered a little by their treatment.

2. The Florida Democratic Party were enthusiastic supporters of moving up the date, even though they knew there were consequences. It wasn't something the GOP "did to us", no matter what they may say now. It also wasn't something the DNC "did to them". The Florida Democratic Party did this to itself.  The rules were there, plain as day, and they thumbed their nose at them. Now they are trying to blackmail Democrats in the other 49 states into special status because "Florida is too valuable".



Please stop (Terry85 - 3/6/2008 4:41:36 PM)
regurgitating lines from the ignorant media:

"All I can say fellow Democrats: you did this to yourselves.  You created a system that is not democratic, a system that allows party insiders to trump popular oppinion"

Super delegates are made up of people who are stuffing envelopes, volunteering time and supporting the DNC year round.  They are not all "party insiders."



I don't care who they are (relawson - 3/6/2008 8:54:53 PM)
They shouldn't have a special vote.  Give them a pat on the back or political appointment for Christ sakes.  Preserve our democracy!


The re-vote . . . (JPTERP - 3/6/2008 6:07:47 PM)
looks like it may happen -- I understand Bill Nelson was getting behind the re-vote too.

As far as Florida and Michigan go -- the only restriction that I think needs to be put into place is that people who participated in the GOP presidential primary earlier this year should be locked out of participating in a re-vote in a new Democratic primary (I assume these are going to be open primaries).



Florida is a closed primary (relawson - 3/6/2008 8:58:36 PM)
It takes 30 days to change political affiliation - so I don't think your concerns would apply to Florida.

Not even independent voters can vote in our primaries - which I disagree with.  I think they should be able to pick one.

I hope we do have a re-vote.  The hurdle now is getting the money.  The Rebublican controlled legislature isn't going to give us the money because they rather enjoy our situation.  Does the DNC have $10,000,000 to pay for another Florida primary?  Or will the federal government pay for it?



I think the DNC . . . (JPTERP - 3/7/2008 12:03:04 AM)
has nixed the idea of putting up $10 million for a revote (I've heard a number as high as $20 million).  

Perhaps though Obama and Clinton could raise the money via a pay-per-view TV "cage match". (joking . . .)

At this stage I don't think Clinton wants a revote.  But I agree that some kind of a re-vote should take place.  In places where the Democrats actively campaign it is more likely than not to help the party during the general election.

The Feds wouldn't pay for it, but if Obama and Clinton asked their supporters and donor networks to pitch in $5 to $20 to run the contest they could probably raise a few million pretty quickly.  Not sure how to make it happen in compliance with FEC rules, but I don't see why a deal couldn't be worked out.  Holding a caucus would be a less expensive option.



I've never been to a caucus (relawson - 3/7/2008 12:38:36 AM)
Nor have most of the people in the state.  Do you think we can plan such an event on short notice, with no experience, and little cash to do it with?


I don't know . . . (JPTERP - 3/7/2008 1:42:14 AM)
I haven't attended a caucus either.  I've just voted in primaries.  FWIW, I've read about 15-20 participant accounts this election cycle and saw the Iowa caucus in action in C-Span.

In very general terms I understand that there are two main formats:

1. Is with a secret ballot where you have people show up sign in and vote.  They're given a ballot when they enter the caucus site.

In Washington state I understand that each voter had the chance to publicly state their case for why they were supporting a particular candidate (a person wasn't obligated to do this).  Once everyone who wanted to had the chance to speak everyone voted.

2. In Iowa the Democrats conduct an open vote (the GOP side is the secret ballot).  

People show up at the caucus site for a while they talk to their neighbors and try to drum up support for their candidate.  At a certain point they move off into groups and take a tally to see what the support levels are.  There are different eligibility levels -- e.g. a candidate needs 15% support in order to have their votes counted.  If the candidate doesn't reach that threshold the supporters can try to persuade other voters to support their candidate; they can give their support to one of the candidates about the 15% threshold, or they can simply not vote.

#1 strikes me as the easiest option.

Apparently the DNC was offering to pony up $600,000 earlier this year to conduct a caucus.  Florida officials said that wasn't enough . . .

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2...



There are caucuses, and there are caucuses. (Randy Klear - 3/7/2008 1:47:53 AM)
In Virginia we have the option of an unassembled caucus or "firehouse primary". It's just like an ordinary primary, only run by the party, not the state election people. Local committees set up the polling places, provide the staff and count the ballots.  The hours are usually a bit shorter and there are fewer polling places in different locations, but the process is the same.

In Michigan, where this is the standard caucus procedure, I think the parties rent voting machines from the state elections people. For one race with two candidates, though, paper ballots should be OK.