Democrats to Avoid Fla., Mich. (Four Early-Primary States Get Candidates to Sign Pledge)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Washington Post

Democrats to Avoid Fla., Mich.
Four Early-Primary States Get Candidates to Sign Pledge

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 2, 2007; Page A04

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008. The move ended weeks-long jockeying over which states get to hold early primaries.

Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday. By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

- snip -

Originally, both parties were to vote in Iowa on Jan. 14, in Nevada on Jan. 19 and in New Hampshire on Jan. 22. Democrats in South Carolina were to vote Jan. 29 and Republicans on Feb. 2. After Florida had moved up to Jan. 29 in early August, South Carolina Republicans picked Jan. 19. New Hampshire is expected to move ahead of South Carolina, and then Iowa would also pick a new date so it can stay several days before New Hampshire.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Ok, I still don't understand this.

What on earth is the point of all that? Why not let Michigan and Florida have early primaries? What's the point of having them later and limiting them to 4 states? Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

[onewholaughsatfools]

3. sarah it called politics

and like you as involved as i am it does not compute..........

[Spangle]

7. It's about Control

THey can sign all they want. But I will only consider those that come to my state and ask for my vote. Either they do what is right, or they are told what to do by others, owned by others, etc.

[geomon666]

2. That's pretty much what the state repukes wanted. Thanks. n/t

[Hissyspit]

4. .

[Demintheusa]

5. Well then if they are going to brush Michigan away and not campaign here

then I am Not going to vote for any Democratic Candidate or Republican I'm voting for myself then.

[cali]

20. You sound like a petulant 5 year old. n/t

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. It's about following the rules.

It's a breath of fresh air, considering the stench of the last 7 years.

[Anaxamander]

8. This is an excellent idea

Let's just alienate battleground states rich in electoral votes. Why not snub Ohio and Pennsylvania while we're at it!

[rocktivity]

9. Why have the primaries so early anyway?

How does it help the party? How does it hurt the oppostition? HOW DOES IT EMPOWER THE VOTERS?


rocknation

[Omaha Steve]

10. Most Dems Vow To Skip Early Primaries

Source: Associated Press

(AP) Barack Obama and John Edwards joined three other Democrats in vowing to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries, a move that leaves only a few candidates planning to compete in person in Florida and Michigan.

The decision by Obama and Edwards is a major boost to the primacy of the four early voting states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - and a welcome development to the Democratic National Committee, which has tried to impose discipline on a handful of unruly states determined to vote before Feb. 5.

"As I have campaigned across America over the last six months, it's become clear that Governor (Howard) Dean and the Democratic National Committee have put together a presidential nomination process that's in the best interests of our party and our nation," Obama said in a written statement.

Said Edwards, also in a statement: "Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money. This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Read more: (AP) Barack Obama and John Edwards joined three other Democrats in vowing to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries, a move that leaves only a few candidates planning to compete in person in Florida and Michigan.

[waiting for hope]

11. Here's the pledge Edwards signed:

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I John Edwards, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

John Edwards wants change - So do I!

[Delphinus]

12. It seems to me

we ought to have a national primary day, the same way we have a national election day.

[Kagemusha]

13. Congress can't enforce a national primary day though.

What's going to have to be done, amend the constitution?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I agree. Why have 4 states only? nt

[cali]

21. A truly terrible idea,

and if you don't know why, here's a clue: A national primary day would NEVER allow for someone like Clinton or Carter. Candidates would simply troll the most delegate rich states' biggest cities. There would be an end to retail politics, and it would be even more about money and media advertising than it is now.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

16. What about Hillary?

Is she just going to snap up all those illegal delegates?

[Eugene]

17. Hillary is skipping them too.

Source: Associated Press

More candidates to skip rogue Dem states

Sat Sep 1, 10:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and
John Edwards on Saturday joined three other Democrats
who say they will skip states that break party rules by
holding early primaries.

Their decision is a major boost to the primacy of four
early voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and
South Carolina — and a welcome development to the
Democratic National Committee.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating
process," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said.
"And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide
the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_po/primary_campa...

[TomClash]

22. Very good - no one should be able to buck the Party on this nt

[Vinca]

18. I think this is very, very dangerous to the party.

If candidates skip certain states, perhaps voters from those certain states won't bother to support them. And if a state's delegates won't be counted at the convention, why should they? Let them have all the primaries in one week - something - anything. The current plan has the potential of delivering the next election to the Republicans on a silver platter.

[flvegan]

19. And to think that in May, Hillary and Obama BOTH said they'd not avoid Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida...

Oh, well, so long as the MONEY keeps coming in.

[Colonel Bat Guano]

23. Game over

Republicans aren't pushing their candidates to skip the state. So it's going to be all Rudy, all Mitt, all Fred etc. all the time until....what, next summer, when Dems will belatedly come back? And when they do, half the story in the local coverage will be, "long time no see" instead of what the final candidate's message is.

If the DNC is inflexible about this, there's really no way out for the Florida Dems to fix it. Accepting a later caucus is ridiculous for a state this size....you wind up cutting out a huge number of voters and depending on who's not included, you skew the primary results in a way that they might not have gone in a general election.

Yep, I understand Florida Dems in the legislature voted for the early primary. I also understand that the Republicans have a majority and the result would have been the same even without a single Democratic vote. That means now, since the Republicans are not enforcing a candidate embargo of the state, I'm sure the Republican Governor and Republican legislature will come to our rescue and offer a new bill and a new vote to change the date to Feb 5, right? Or will they happily embrace the fact that no Democratic candidates will be allowed in a giant swing state until next year, and in fact will not likely appear until next summer (because they'll be busy campaigning in states that, you know, vote)?

(Oh, I forgot, Dem candidates can come to Florida...for fundraisers. Which will lead to the kind of coverage one expects for Republicans....that the candidates care about money but not votes. And I predict rough times ahead at those fundraisers. I'm not putting a nickel into any Dem coffers while this shit is going on.)

This is a circular firing squad and Dean is the one saying "ready...aim....fire".

I'm glad DNC rules are being enforced to the letter. I'm glad that many other people are glad about it. Continue to feel as righteous about it as, say, a Nader voter in 2000, when Florida's 27 electoral votes go narrowly (maybe not so narrowly) to a weak Republican candidate in 2008.

[mbperrin]

24. Thank you, Colonel. Excellent analysis.

The perception of they want our money and do not care about our votes is inevitable with a heavy Republican campaign presence and an absent Democratic effort. The real clue to all this is that this is exactly what the Republicans wanted us to do. There oughta be a clue in there somewhere.

[Debi]

25. Republicans are enforcing their rules - the meeting is Sept. 4th

And five states (including FL) are in danger of losing delegates the same as on the Democrats side.

[robcon]

26. Nothing good can come of this.

There are certain to be some voters who feel the snub that Democrats have gotten themselves into. Maybe it's only a few voters, but MI and FL have a lot of electoral votes, and we need all the voters we can get....