3 Democrats to skip rogue primary states

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

3 Democrats to skip rogue primary states

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd
and Joe Biden on Friday became the first presidential
candidates to promise not to campaign in states that
hold early nominating contests in violation of party
rules.

The three quickly signed onto a pledge circulated by
Democratic leaders of the four states that have the
party's blessing to hold early contests — Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The pledge
says they will avoid competing in any other states
that vote before Feb. 5.

Aides to Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said
they were reviewing the pledge. Clinton's aides have
previously said she is committed to competing wherever
there is a primary or a caucus.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_el_pr/primary_campaign_pledge_7

[knitter4democracy]

1. So, they won't come to Michigan?

That's ridiculous. This whole primary/caucus thing is crazy, and Dean needs to get everyone to the table and get it all sorted out.

[NobleCynic]

5. They need to stop the madness of pushing earlier and earlier every year

If it has to be this heavy handed, so be it

[cyclezealot]

30. Its not heavy handed of state party organizations.

It's heavy handed of state political activists. easy for you to say, you have a voice. Whether our state does or does not abide by this heavy handed decision, means we have little influence. One way or the other. Our state legislature is independent, and they decided to challenge this corrupt system. We are not important now, we don't need to be important later. We plan to call Gov. Grhanholm and tell her to not back down.

[Matteon]

2. Disgusting

This makes me want to leave the party. Who the hell is the Democratic Party to tell states when to hold elections? They need to STFU, grow some humility, and learn quickly that their interests are secondary.

These three candidates just put party above democracy and they all deserve to lose.

[dysfunctional press]

3. then leave, already.

nt.

[Orangepeel]

6. anybody can run for president

but somebody who wants to do it under a party banner should play by the rules of the party

[Matteon]

12. Really?

Is it the party or the States that decide when to hold primary elections? Candidates are supposed to skip out on whole states because their party organization says so? The party organization needs to STFU and let the candidates try to spread their messages and platforms to the voters.

This whole issue is a joke and is making this the Democratic Party looks like the Republican Party and their all-that-matters-is-winning methodology. It's nothing short of ridiculous that a political party would try to have any say whatsoever in when a state should hold it's primary election. The parties have the pleasure of having the dates for primary elections dictated to them whether they like it or not. Any attempt to subvert that by any claim of "party rules" is flat wrong. The Democratic Party organization chose the wrong side of this situation. They need to do a 180. Now.

[Orangepeel]

13. they don't have to follow the rules of the party

but if they don't, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get party support.

What do you think a primary election for president is? Its purpose is to choose delegates to a party convention that will vote for a party nominee. Of course the members of the party should have a say in how and when it occurs.

[Matteon]

14. I disagree.

Like it or not the elected governments of the states decide when to hold their primaries. It might make sense for parties to have a say in how and when they occur but that is not the case. It is for the parties to accept what the state's decide to do with their exclusive right to hold primary elections. And while it is true that the primaries are used to select delegates that does not inherently mean that the party itself should have any sway over the primaries. The parties need only to be informed of the results, and they can take it from there.

[Orangepeel]

15. well, as you say "like it or not"

It is just as easy to argue that the parties have the exclusive right to decide what to do at their conventions, including which delegates were selected according to the rules that state party representatives agreed to and which were not. You are right that the party can't force Florida not to have the primary in January. But, in turn, the state can't force the party to accept the delegates selected therein.

Candidates are not forced to run under the banner of a political party. But if they are going to use the party label and party resources, the party has the right to insist they abide by party rules or pay the agreed upon penalty.

[Matteon]

19. That may be true....

....that after a state elects their delegates that the party, at their own convention, can disregard the outcome of that state's primary, but for them to even consider doing so, as I've stated in previous posts, would be flat wrong and disgusting.

[Orangepeel]

21. you're entitled to your opinion

I happen to think it is "flat wrong and disgusting" that the Florida Democratic party disregarded rules they agree to by pushing with the republicans to move up the primary and then lied to blame somebody else ("republicans MADE us do it! Sob, sob! But oh, no! we can't compromise and have a caucus later!") Boo-hoo. Do they think nobody paid attention to them while they were trying to move the primary?

I've never lived in a state where the primary mattered a hill of beans. But, I understand that there are pros and cons to having one national primary. The downside is that lesser funded candidates wouldn't have the time to build momentum and those that go into the primary with the greatest name recognition and greatest leftover war chests would always win. Starting in smaller states allows for the possibility that lesser known, lesser funded, non media darlings will be able to gain a following by actually meeting a majority of voters.

Regardless, the Florida party agreed to the current rules and needs to do their best to follow them. Nobody is saying that the Florida party can't send delegates, just that they have to select them in accordance to the established rules. That's the fair thing to do.

[Matteon]

24. The party in Florida....

can't tell the legislature what to do though. That's the real key issue in my mind. When the efforts of the democratically elected legislature conflict with the rules or desires of the party the party needs to step aside.

[Orangepeel]

25. okay, we've come full circle

I understand that you don't like the way the system is set up. You probably don't like the idea of the electoral college, either. But, the presidential primary is NOT simply a way to winnow the field down to the top two candidates, the way, say, a primary for city council is. A presidential primary selects delegates to the party convention. It is, by its very nature, a party activity, and the party needs to enforce the rules.

In my mind, the Florida Democratic party can "step aside" by holding a caucus on February 5.

[cyclezealot]

32. the legislature makes the laws of a state, not the DNC.

The legislature does not have to abide by whatever happens at a national convention.

[Orangepeel]

36. and the party picks the candidate that will run under its banner

:shrug:

The Florida Democratic primary works kind of like the Electoral college. The vote for a candidate is really a vote for representatives of the candidate to represent them at the national convention. The number of delegates is assigned based on the percentage of votes a candidate gets in each congressional district, with a candidate needing to get 15% of the vote to get any delegates. The particular people who will be delegates will be selected at a caucus after the primary from people who signed up to be delegates for each particular candidate before the primary. The delegates will be gender balanced and approved by the campaign. The state party has a number of "extra" slots that it allocates to state party committee members, big donors, interest group leaders, etc.

None of this has anything to do with the legislature and it can all be done at caucuses within the approved time period.

[Tesha]

27. I don't think you understand what, legally, a primary election is.

A primary election isn't like a general election where
various governmental agencies have exclusive say. Instead,
a primary election is really a series of separate elections,
run on a single day, but totally on behalf of the parties.

They live in a sort of "grey area" between state laws
and party rules and it is (likely) entirely legal for a
party to disregard the results of a primary that is held
in contravention of that party's rules.

Tesha

[brentspeak]

8. This makes you want to leave the Republican Party?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. I don't think you'll get too much sympathy here

If you're actually interested you could get an education, but sympathy... not likely.

[KingFlorez]

10. You sound so "concerned"

[WhiteTara]

17. buh bye n/t

[yewberry]

20. "These three candidates just put party above democracy..." Hilarious!

No. The FL & MI state parties are putting their selfishness above what's best for the country. FL knows that the Dems need their electoral votes, and so they feel free to force the issue and essentially blackmail the Dems of every other state in the union.

The states agreed to a primary schedule. The candidates have to plan based on that schedule, and they have to be responsive to the needs of the party for the whole country, not just the whims of FL & MI. Yes, you actually have to plan campaigns. Not such a big problem for a Perot, a Bush, or a Kerry, but a really big problem for less-funded candidates.

Now those states refuse to abide by their agreements and are threatening the results of the GE, making Dems look bad, and causing division and resentment between states.

Way to go, Florida & Michigan.

[harun]

28. Don't let the door hit yah where the Lord split yah (n/t)

[jaysunb]

4. This is good...

I hope the others will do the same.

[fujiyama]

7. Doesn't matter

I wasn't planning on voting for them anyways.

I understand the frustration of having different states try to leapfrog each other for importance.

But this is just the party showing its desire to keep archaic rules in place to preserve Iowa and New Hampshire's "first in the nation" status. Even though I had no problem with Kerry, I found it ridiculous the race was pretty much over by the time it came to this state. Yes, we can blame the media, but the idea of having one small and homogeneous state catapult a person into the "front runner" is stupid.

The nomination process is incredibly idiotic. In fact, the more you look at politics in this country, the less democratic it really seems.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. I can agree with much of what you say

But I disagree that pushing up the primaries is the way to solve the issue. All this does is make the matter worse.

At this rate we'll be entering into the next campaign presidential cycle in winter of 2009.

[fujiyama]

16. I know what you mean

but it pisses me off greatly that the national committees of both parties don't realize this frustration with the fascination of Iowa and New Hampshire.

If you ask regular people, they probably think that a bunch of party hacks in back rooms in these two small states decide the nominee of each party. The sad thing is, they aren't that far from the truth.

I mentioned voting in the primaries once and it was like the person needed to be reminded that Michigan even had a primary, because it rarely ever has an effect by the time it gets here. The exception was in '00 when McCain kicked Bush's ass here.

We need a better system in place. True, I don't think having primaries almost a year before the election will solve the problem, but half assed measures like throwing in Nevada isn't going to either. We need a shuffle. Iowa and New Hampshire have had their day in the spotlight. It's time shake up the system!

[Critters2]

18. There's nothing "back room" about the Iowa caucuses

They're the most grass roots form of democracy I've ever seen.

[Vinca]

22. It's truly amazing that in an election season when Democrats

should be dancing in the streets at their prospects of taking the White House and a supermajority in Congress, they manage to find a way to piss off segments of the party and create an atmosphere of divisiveness. If we get to the convention and certain delegates are not allowed to vote, it will do great damage to the Democratic Party. They need to go back to the drawing board on this one before it's too late. Democrats do not disenfranchise voters.

[Demeter]

29. You Explained EXACTLY Why This Fight Is Happening

Because this year, there is a damn good chance that the Primary will be the real election. The Democratic candidate will be running against a GOP so damaged as to provide no form of contest.

In these circumstances, a national primary with instant Runoff voting is the only fair way for all Democrats to participate in the nomination of their candidate, no matter which state they are in.

It is logical, it is easy, and therefore, it will not happen this time. It may not happen ever, at least not in the next 50 years (my best lifetime estimate). But it OUGHT to!

[davsand]

23. It isn't like these guys are exactly front runners.

I have mixed feelings on this. I have felt for a while now that maybe we need to just go to a national primary and completely abandon this staggered state primary thing we have currently.

I'm not slamming the folks or process in any other state, but I have to confess, I have a very real issue with the idea that a few states determine the outcome of the Dem Presidential Primary race. I don't think that ANY small group of states can accurately represent a national choice. I don't blame states that want to play an active role in the process.

Before anybody climbs up my leg, I also understand that a national primary would handicap the candidates who don't have a lot of cash on hand. I fully GET that. I also fully GET that if you can muster enough grass roots support the cash isn't the sole determination of a quality candidate.

Further, I think that if we made clean campaign funding a focus for a while maybe we could make some inroads. Imagine what THAT would be! No more "back room" crap and no more whoring the candidates. They could maybe actually discuss substantive things like what they plan to DO for us...

I dunno. Seems to me that the national convention is a big old dog and pony show anyhow. When was the last time the nominee was actually DETERMINED by the delegates at the convention?


Laura

[MaineDem]

26. Obama and Edwards have joined them

It seems only Clinton and Kucinich haven't agreed to this.

[cyclezealot]

34. with mandatory free air time on OUR airwaves

there would be no unfairness with a national primary. It'd be a national audience the way it should be. That is the other beef with the corrupt US campaign system. Only those with access to millionaires can run for office.

[ohio2007]

31. they have a better chance winning the state by not stumping in the state? catch 22

seems the plan is to make a farce out of the entire primary process.

whatever

[cyclezealot]

35. good. its about time.

[Keefer]

33. What's the big deal?

Why is it such a big deal when a State holds it's primary. I don't understand why we don't just have a national primary day anyway. Every State "primaries" on the same day. Just like "election day" used to be before early voting started.

[TankLV]

37. Good for them!