I was expecting there’d be some BMG discussion on this today, but there wasn’t… so I’ll initiate it. I wrote this at my blog, but I’ll cross post it for discussion’s sake…
Anyone else having buyer’s remorse over the delegate situation in Florida? The national party was right to penalize the state party for jumping their primary forward as it did, but on the other hand, is it really appropriate to completely take away the voice of voters on an election day?
While party politics is different than actual elections, they don’t call it the Democratic Party for nothing. Obviously, Ryan’s Take is not to prod Hillary closer to winning this thing, but a full majority of Florida’s Democratic voters felt that way. Should the party really be in the business of telling them otherwise – of party-sponsored voter disenfranchisement? Regular Democrats, after all, had absolutely no control over the state party’s decision.
This could be the first time it’s ever been uttered on Ryan’s Take, but perhaps here’s one instance where the Republicans had it right: penalize Florida by stripping them of half their delegates. Or, better yet, strip the state of it’s Super Delegates – the people who actually pushed moving the primary up – but let the people still have their just votes. Either way, it’s a stiff punishment that sends a message to state parties everywhere, yet still honors the will of Florida’s voters. Anyone feel differently?
sabutai says
Stripping a state’s superdelegates is a very good idea, in my opinion. May lead to some intramural bad feelings, but that’s okay.
<
p>Fact is, the rules were set and agreed upon (unanimously, I believe), then MI and FL decided to ignore them. Furthermore, Democrats were in favor of ignoring them. I think the buyer’s remorse should be toward the leaders of this bum’s rush, rather than the DNC. If Randy Moss gets penalized for a pass interference call on Sunday if he shoves his defender down, do we blame the refs, or Moss?
ryepower12 says
Moss had control over whether or not he pushed someone, Florida rank and file Democrats had no ability to change their election date – and little to no understanding of the party rules (and consequences) of doing so. Heck, most rank and file Democrats probably didn’t even know what was going on.
<
p>So, I maintain, the Super Delegates should have been the ones that were stripped, but since I have absolutely no hope that the DNC could be so intelligent and fair, at the very least Florida Democrats should have half their delegates.
<
p>Again, I’m not saying they shouldn’t be penalized: losing 50% of your delegates, especially when you’re a state as large as Florida, is a huge deal. That really impacts their ability to impact the eventual choice at the convention, but would at least mean Florida voters would still have a voice and a say in the election. (And I view that as important, especially in Florida, where winning the state would go a long way in guarantying us victory in ’08).
sabutai says
Florida legislators did not control the moving of the date, but that did control their own votes. And they voted unanimously with the Republicans to move up the date. Had they voted against, I’d have much more sympathy.
<
p>(And yes, it may have been in their own self-interest, but self-interest is the number one cause of rule-breaking, from Washington, DC to Tempe, AZ.)
ryepower12 says
about politicians. I’m talking about regular people, who not only didn’t vote unanimously with the Republicans, but most of whom almost certainly wouldn’t have even known what was going on or the ramifications of it.
hrs-kevin says
It was widely reported in the FL media at the time. Voters aren’t stupid.
<
p>I think that perhaps the penalty should have been to strip half the delegates, but I think it is too late to change it now without greatly weakening the national parties control over the process.
ryepower12 says
But most people don’t read what’s being reported at that level, even Floridians in Florida when it’s about Florida. A lot of people would have the vague sense that the election was being moved up, but I doubt the ramifications of it would have been apparent. People don’t know much about the convention/delegate process – I bet a poll could be taken where people thought primaries were actually decided at the state level – something more akin to the electoral college. I highly doubt the rank and file democrats knew their voices would be stripped. Furthermore, even if they did, they still weren’t given the opportunity to vote on it.
<
p>I don’t see how it would weaken the national control at all, the penalty would still be so stiff that future states would think twice about breaking the party’s rules. The party would be more hurt if a lot of people were turned off by it in Florida to the extent that they’ll either sit out or maybe even vote for the other side, because their voices weren’t heard. People get very pissed when they’re robbed of their votes, as they should.
alice-in-florida says
Is that what the Democratic party is now…a bunch of control freaks?
hrs-kevin says
but they have to control the process. Otherwise all states will creep up their primaries to be first and we will end up with all the states voting before Thanksgiving.
alice-in-florida says
sounds like a great idea…especially if we can add some kind of special public humiliation for Bill Nelson, who I understand is mainly responsible for turning a bad situation into a total clusterf***.
<
p>But the DNC is being appallingly petty…refusing to allow the FL and MI delegations to reserve hotel rooms in Denver. This is nothing short of moronic.
hrs-kevin says
I could see that they could refuse them rooms in whatever hotels are specifically reserved for the convention, but does the convention have every hotel room in Denver booked? I really doubt it. There are only something like 4000 delegates and Denver must have room for conventions many times that size.
laurel says
but what about MI? voters didn’t have the choice of all candidates on that ballot as they did in fl. is a middle ground possible there? how/when should ‘unaffiliated’ votes be divvied up?
ryepower12 says
But because there was only one candidate even on the ballot, I don’t see how it would be possible to give them delegates.
<
p>It’s also different in that they have an open primary, so at least Democrats could vote for the Republican they most wanted to see nominated and trounced… and I wouldn’t be surprised to see polling data that showed it had a lot to do with Romney actually winning Michigan.
afertig says
Not one — not one — Democrat in the Florida house voted against moving up the primary. Nobody had the guts to stand up and say that it’s crazy to keep pushing up our primaries. And penalizing only half of their delegates? Florida is a HUGE state. There are probably quite a few states that followed followed DNC rules but would still have fewer delegates than Florida. I’d be much, much more lenient if we could fine just 1 Florida Democrat in the house who thought it wasn’t in the national interests to push the primaries up.
ryepower12 says
Create a bigger penalty. Personally, I think banning the candidates from campaigning there alone was a big deal. Stripping them of half their delegates would have been a huge deal.
<
p>But, and this is important, we have to think of what’s in the Democratic Party’s best interest. I don’t think that’s pissing off Florida’s voters by stripping of them in all of their say in who’s our next President. Florida’s say in POTUS, as you already mentioned, is kind of a big deal. I’m just saying…
<
p>And I still don’t think we should Florida’s rank and file voters for their stupid, selfish super delegates – penalize those very super delegates, by stripping them of their right to be at the convention in total.
centralmassdad says
To take two swing states– including the most crucial swings state of all, which decided the previous two elections and not in your favor– and kick them in the shins.
<
p>Doesn’t matter if the DNC is right, wrong, or indifferent.
afertig says
There will be months between the convention and election day — a lot will happen. I don’t think that a process story about how the nominee got to be the nominee will make or break Democrats. There are more important issues out there to focus on in both states, and the story will get old fast.
centralmassdad says
But Florida in particular has twice in the last two elections turned on the slightest margin. If the DNC pisses off one-tenth of one percent of voters that would otherwise vote for the Democrat in November, such that they sulk and stay home, that would be a very bad thing for the Democratic nominee.
afertig says
of a war in Iraq which isn’t working. We’re at the beginning of what could be major economic downturn. We’re at the end of the most unpopular Republican Administration in history. One which ruined our reputation abroad and did little to relieve the suffering of those hit by Katrina at home. And you’re worried about 1/10 of 1% who may be pissed off at the DNC for trying to bring a meager modicum of sanity to the primary system? Why don’t we keep our eyes on the ball.
justice4all says
made all the difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency. To win, you have to be in the business of making friends, and not enemies, needlessly. Some times, you have to be practical – and this wasn’t it. It’s akin to keeping mayors out of the state convention for not supporting an underfunded, inexperienced shot-in-the dark Democrat over an established, entrenched Republican senator. It’s not smart politics.
afertig says
I have to believe that Floridians are more disposed to vote for a Democrat than they were in 2004. We picked up seats for Congress in Florida in 2006, and Bush’s approval ratings are in the tank, even more than they were. With all that’s happened since 2000 and 2004, do you really think that the DNC is what’s going to turn this election?
<
p>Look, you never know what state is going to make or break the election. In 1992, Bill Clinton didn’t win Florida, but he won anyway. In 2004, it was Ohio that would have made the difference. So we’ve got to be competitive everywhere, and I agree that Democrats have to show up. But I think most Democrats realize that there the issues at stake in this election (can anybody spelle “Supreme Court”?) far outweigh the petty process story of the DNC.
afertig says
ryepower12 says
Florida would have made the difference, if Kerry was more competitive there. Don’t underestimate the Republicans’ ability to convince a sizable portion of this country into thinking the surge is working and Iraq is moving in the right direction. That’s why McCain is a dangerous candidate: he’s already proven he’s successful at doing that.
<
p>One of the important things about elections is there’s not usually going to be one thing that kills a candidate. Maybe that candidate didn’t have enough funds, maybe his field op wasn’t great, maybe he had a bad position or two which just didn’t jive, maybe a few bad negative ads against him (or her)… the point is, we don’t want to turn off even 1/10 of 1% on an issue like this… and I think that’s a conservative estimate by a long shot.
<
p>Florida’s voters were very enthusiastic about their primary – the democratic turnout was very good. I don’t think we want to take away their excitement for a second.
ryepower12 says
People’s abilities to be petty and small minded. I bet we’ll lose more like 2-3% because of this… and yes, that many people will remember it and be pissed about it. Hell, I’d be one of them, if I were in Florida.
afertig says
I have a hard time believing that. You’re an active, engaged progressive activist. You write your own blog on the issues that matter to you. You were a big fan of Deval Patrick, who talked a lot about “civic engagement.” Say you moved down to Florida for whatever reason. Are you seriously telling me that because the DNC enforced its own rules, you would either (a) vote Republican, Green, Independent or somehow not for the Democratic Party … or (b) sit at home and let Florida vote how it will vote, election results be damned.
<
p>I really doubt it. And I really doubt that the activists who actually follow DNC rules would sit home either.
<
p>And by the way, I know neither Obama or Clinton are your cup of tea, but would you really be willing to punish them for what the DNC did and allow 4 more years of disastrous Republican rule? I think people who follow this story would make a similar calculation and will vote for the Democrat, and will do what they can to GOTV for the Democrat.
ryepower12 says
I’d still vote, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be pissed. If the candidate who I didn’t support were the one who won the nomination, when my state would have made a big difference in the outcome of the race, then absolutely I’d be mad.
<
p>Would that mean I wouldn’t vote – or would cast a ballot in protest? No, but I could envision voting being about the only thing I would do… and generally, I do a whole lot more in a competitive election.
centralmassdad says
That those would be reasons that the DNC would be attempting to help the eventual nominee win in November, rather than kicking such a crucial state in the shins just to show that it is all that.
<
p>If 1/10 of 1% of Democratic voters were added to Gore’s column in Florida in 2000, there is no Bush administration.
afertig says
Can be won in other ways. Get a better GOTV field program. Start organizing earlier and harder. Hammer the Republicans on Iraq, ethics, Katrina relief, the environment, civil liberties, the Justice Department, torture, and more. Do more outreach online or door to door, hiring new organizers who will because the future of the Democratic Party. But don’t weaken the DNC — that will hurt Democrats in the long run. When the DNC makes a rule, establishes the punishment for violating that rule, Florida Democrats agree to that rule and then violate it, they should be punished. It was a unanimous agreement that they should get their delegates stripped. At the very least, the FL Dems could have given the DNC a little wiggle room if at least one of them voted against it. The DNC could say, “Well, we don’t want to punish all FL Democrats since not everybody voted for moving up the primary.” That’s something we can work with.
<
p>As it is, any attempt to reverse the decision at this point is either motivated to get Clinton the nomination, to save face for the Floridians who don’t deserve it, or to weaken the DNC. I’m not in favor of any of those positions, and even if you like Clinton, that’s not enough to change the rules.
centralmassdad says
But assert that the initial decision was incomprehensibly stupid.
<
p>If the DNC is confident enough to kick away Florida voters, then I don’t want to hear any whining about fraud when McCain wins the entire election by a margin of 175 votes in Broward and Dade counties.
justice4all says
in a party that doesn’t favor the pragmatic.
tom-m says
The Republicans trumped us on this one- they managed to slap the two states on the wrists without completely disenfranchising the average voter.
<
p>I think the best course now is to hope there is a consensus candidate before the convention and seat the delegates at that time. I don’t want to take the chance that the 1% who’s holding a grudge makes a difference in a swing state come November.
alice-in-florida says
is that it is entirely possible that the nomination won’t be decided February 5 and that the later primaries may end up being more decisive than the early ones in deciding who the eventual nominee will be. The whole thing is just stooopid, all the way around….having the early primary was stupid, punishing Florida in such an extreme way is equally (or more) stupid.
chriso says
There are somne very good arguments for changing the order of the primaries now. But it can’t happen, because Iowa and New Hampshire, in particular, guard their positions jealously. The party has no choice but to allow itself to be extorted by these states, because no candidate will risk pissing off the voters. So we’ll be stuck with these two states setting the tone for primary season every four years, whether we like it or not. If we’re dishing out blame, let’s not ignore the totally self serving positions of the early states.
david says
the party does have options. How ’bout this: it sets up regional primaries. If NH and IA jump the line, the DNC strips them of their delegates and bans campaigning. Seems straightforward — I’d rather have NH and IA Democrats pissed off in the general than FL and MI.
joeltpatterson says
So, I’m glad we didn’t piss off that state this year.