DNC better not touch Florida delegates

By: relawson
Published On: 8/25/2007 9:12:01 PM

I live and vote in Florida.  Should Democrats go forward with their threats to take away our delegates, I won't be voting for a Democrat in the general election.  The same goes for the Republican party should they do the same.

If the DNC doesn't want us to move our primaries up, then they need to come up with a better idea when it comes to primaries.  As much as I like Iowa and New Hampshire, they should not have more influence over the elections than everyone else.

The current primary system is broken.  The solution to the problem is NOT to disenfranchise voters.  Why would the DNC resort to such draconian measures?  Shame on them.

Comments



Please don't not vote, this is another Republican Dirty Trick (Dianne - 8/26/2007 8:15:45 AM)
After listening to this morning's news, I understand that there was a piece of legislation in Florida to provide a paper trail for votes on voting machines.  The Republicans, who control the legislature, nefariously tacked on to the legislation a bumped-up primary date to screw national the Democratic primaries.  I'm going to go read the papers on this....


One of the reasons we moved the primaries ahead (relawson - 8/26/2007 8:24:16 AM)
Is because there is a ballot initiative we want to defeat - and we wanted more Democrats to turn out.

If the DNC pushes this matter, I can guarantee that they will make Florida a solidly red state. 

The DNC is about to cost Democrats the election in 2008.  What idiots!  Do they really think they can win without Florida?  We are already teetering on the edge and can go to either party.  Howard Dean is about to blow the 2008 election, and it is on 2007.

This is bigger than you can imagine.



Thanks for the heads-up but... (Dianne - 8/26/2007 8:34:07 AM)
can you give us more information on the details of the ballot initiative, and any other details that would make this more situation clearer.  Thanks.


Sorry for the typo.....still waking up (Dianne - 8/26/2007 8:35:30 AM)
can you give us more information on the details of the ballot initiative, and any other details that would make this situation clearer.  Thanks


A little more info on the problem (Dianne - 8/26/2007 8:56:51 AM)
Michael Shear wrote this in the WaPo two days ago:

...
Under DNC rules, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the other candidates could be prohibited from "campaigning" in the Sunshine State as punishment for the state's decision to ignore the national voting calendar. If they violate the ban, they could lose whatever delegates they might earn.

But what does that mean?

No one appears to know, for sure, because the rules don't define "campaigning" very clearly.

On its face, the rule would appear to prohibit big rallies, small meet-and-greet gatherings, house parties, speeches to interest groups and campaign bus tours. According to the Post's Campaign Tracker," the candidates together have already held 114 events in Florida, and the campaign is just heating up.

But what about fundraising? Florida is a huge source of campaign cash for the candidates, who often travel to the state quietly for meetings or receptions with top donors. The rules say that fundraising is usually considered part of campaigning and would be banned.

And what about events that have already been scheduled? Will candidates be allowed to attend speeches or functions that have been planned since before the sanctions were in place? The answer is not clear.

Then there's the online world: can candidates email video clips of themselves to their supporters in Florida? Can they do long-distance telephone interviews with Florida radio hosts?

DNC sources said the party is likely to make exceptions for pre-planned events. No guess yet on how online campaigning might be treated.

In the end, it may not matter.

If the DNC punishes Florida by taking all of its delegates away, there won't be anything to hold over the candidates. They could then ignore the ban altogether and campaign in Florida anyway -- not for the delegates, but for the sense of momentum that could come from winning such a large, pivotal state.