Why did Mich / Fla do it anyway

[Arc]

Heard a lot about why Florida and Michigan votes should count but haven't heard why these states put themselves in this position in the first place - in direct violation of Party Rules? Enlighten me.

[ziggy29]

Because they wanted to be first, and they probably thought the parties were bluffing. Just a guess.

IMO, this is an example of why we I think we should have a Constitutional amendment establishing ONE primary day for all the states.

[Achiever51]

Politics.

Here in Michigan, the biggest force behind the move was Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.

So the thought was, let's move the primary up so we can get some of that attention and support. But it's a lot cheaper to campaign in a state like Iowa for one thing, and the Michigan Dem "leaders" didn't expect that the Dem party rules would keep out most of the candidates anyway.

So the whole answer? Politics...and stupidity.

[burch64]

A guest on Fox news said in Florida it was the Republican legislature and Republican Governor that did it.

I suppose she said that because she thought they had done it just to mess with the Democrats. (I really doubt it)

[clifp]

Howard Dean gets partially credit for this mess contribution to President McCain.

The Republican penalized early by primary states by cutting the delegates by 50%, which were accepted by everybody the states that moved up their primaries and the candidates.

Of course the Democrats, relying on the premise, that the national leaders know what is best and the states have no rights, dictated the my way or the highway approach to Florida and Michigan. This coupled with the highly elite and undemocratic superdelegates gives everybody a taste of the future under Democrat rule.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Originally Posted by Achiever51

So the thought was, let's move the primary up so we can get some of that attention and support.

So from another angle they're jealous that someone figured out how to make money on something, and instead of figuring out a moneymaker on their own, decided they'd try to grab it from the originator.

Next thing you know, Nebraska is going to try to swipe Mardi Gras.

What I'd like to see is getting rid of the sham primary process and just have the two parties and the coffer stuffers tell us who we get to vote for. Like they actually do now.

[ziggy29]

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny

What I'd like to see is getting rid of the sham primary process and just have the two parties and the coffer stuffers tell us who we get to vote for. Like they actually do now.

Or alternatively, one "national primary day" common to every state would be an improvement, too. This oneupsmanship in being first out of the gate is getting ridiculous.

[samclem]

A single national primary day would assure that only an already-known big name could get the nomination. A successful candidate would either have to be very wealthy (and therefore able to buy TV ad time nationwide) or the selected golden boy/girl of the big donors. Obama could never have gotten noticed in a national primary.

The present system allows a candidate with energy and a message to work hard in a small region and build support. If he/she is successful, then people notice and he gets more support. Momentum.

The present system also is long enough that the candidates are fully vetted before the national election. There's plenty of time to find skeletons in closets and to identify personal weaknesses-things that would be swept under the rug in a more rapid process.

The present system also does a good job of showing if a candidate has the physical and emotional stamina to be President. Sure, McCain is no kid, but anybody that can keep up the pace for months under our present system probably has what to takes to go the distance in office.

Finally, the present system underscores the traditional (and constitutional) role of the states. A national primary would be another incremental move to centralize power at the national level.

Our present system has a lot of flaws, but it is better than some alternatives.

[Achiever51]

Update on Michigan: Our Dem governor was on the news last night saying that several prominent Michigan Democrats will be meeting with the head of the Dem party to sort this out; meanwhile, some are pushing for a "do-over" primary, which the Governor says will cost $10 MILLION and there are absolutely no plans -- to say nothing about no money! -- to do this.

All in all, a mess.

[Eagle43]

Originally Posted by samclem

A single national primary day would assure that only an already-known big name could get the nomination. A successful candidate would either have to be very wealthy (and therefore able to buy TV ad time nationwide) or the selected golden boy/girl of the big donors. Obama could never have gotten noticed in a national primary.

The present system allows a candidate with energy and a message to work hard in a small region and build support. If he/she is successful, then people notice and he gets more support. Momentum.

The present system also is long enough that the candidates are fully vetted before the national election. There's plenty of time to find skeletons in closets and to identify personal weaknesses-things that would be swept under the rug in a more rapid process.

The present system also does a good job of showing if a candidate has the physical and emotional stamina to be President. Sure, McCain is no kid, but anybody that can keep up the pace for months under our present system probably has what to takes to go the distance in office.

Finally, the present system underscores the traditional (and constitutional) role of the states. A national primary would be another incremental move to centralize power at the national level.

Our present system has a lot of flaws, but it is better than some alternatives.

The best system would be to have all elections on 15 April (tax day). Maybe we could send it in with our W-2s. That ought to remind us who's really paying for all those promises. Or to quote an old poker maxim, when you look around the table, if you don't see the sucker, the sucker is you....

[lazygood4nothinbum]

a friend of mine put it thus: you can spend so much effort to be fair to everyone that you wind up being fair to no one.

as to florida, i have no idea why we need to vote again. even though neither stumped here, both candidates were registered here and so we voted already. why go thru more expense and not just use our votes already cast.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Eagle43

The best system would be to have all elections on 15 April (tax day). Maybe we could send it in with our W-2s. That ought to remind us who's really paying for all those promises. Or to quote an old poker maxim, when you look around the table, if you don't see the sucker, the sucker is you....

I like that, too. Maybe we could do the general election like that. Oh, and eliminate tax withholding (it only started during WW II as a "temporary expedient" anyway--ha!). Nope, you write the check for the whole thing and send it in. Feel the pain. Cast your vote.

Now, a real cowboy might recommend a further refinement--that the votes be weighted by the amount of taxes enclosed. Everyone gets a vote, but the guy doing more to support the activities of government gets a bigger say in the selection process.

Of course, I would never suggest such a reactionary measure.