Dean: Do FL, MI again

[Darth Wong]

Wow. My loathing of HRC increases by the day.

[D.Turtle]

No, Clinton actually went to Florida on election day. So she most assuredly did campaign there.

AFAIK, she only went there after the polls closed in order to declare "victory".
And to be fair, in the run up to the Florida election, Obama did a national ad buy which therefore also ran in Florida.

Hmm, defending Clinton seems almost as strange as defending Bush - I can't believe I'm doing it

And the guy from Newsweek that Olbermann had on yesterday also said that they are expecting the Clinton campaign to sue if they try to redo the Florida and Michigan Primaries.

[General Zod]

And to be fair, in the run up to the Florida election, Obama did a national ad buy which therefore also ran in Florida.

I'm failing to see how "buying a national ad" translates into "campaigning in Florida".

And the guy from Newsweek that Olbermann had on yesterday also said that they are expecting the Clinton campaign to sue if they try to redo the Florida and Michigan Primaries.

It would hardly be shocking when they threatened to sue Texas Democrats over their caucuses.

[Big Phil]

And to be fair, in the run up to the Florida election, Obama did a national ad buy which therefore also ran in Florida.

I'm failing to see how "buying a national ad" translates into "campaigning in Florida".

And the guy from Newsweek that Olbermann had on yesterday also said that they are expecting the Clinton campaign to sue if they try to redo the Florida and Michigan Primaries.

It would hardly be shocking when they threatened to sue Texas Democrats over their caucuses.

What's more interesting - I haven't seen any press the last couple of days talking about Hillary's Clinton's "victories" in Ohio and Texas. It's almost as if the press realizes she didn't change shit and is spinning the story to keep herself in the race.

[Adrian Laguna]

Frankly why are we having a primary season that goes on for months? Why numerous Super Tuesdays and other such "event" primaries? Wouldn't we have avoided long drawn out slugfests that threaten to divide the party by having it all on one day - or hell all in one week - and just have it over with? Wouldn't it save money so that all the candidates are spending money to get it done in one week?

I actually like having an extended primary, it helps me get to know the candidates better. Except that by "extended" I mean it's was over one week ago. That is to say, I'd like the primary season to be two months long. Ideally, the closing act would be something similar to "Super Tuesday".

However, that means the Presidential race would span from now 'till November. So I propose we move all the primaries up. I'd say we have the first primary be in April. Oh, and there should be a rule that forbids anyone from running or campaigning in a non-election year. That is, candidacies cannot be announced, or endorsed, or advertised, until January 1st.

[SCRawl]

Frankly why are we having a primary season that goes on for months? Why numerous Super Tuesdays and other such "event" primaries? Wouldn't we have avoided long drawn out slugfests that threaten to divide the party by having it all on one day - or hell all in one week - and just have it over with? Wouldn't it save money so that all the candidates are spending money to get it done in one week?

I actually like having an extended primary, it helps me get to know the candidates better. Except that by "extended" I mean it's was over one week ago. That is to say, I'd like the primary season to be two months long. Ideally, the closing act would be something similar to "Super Tuesday".

However, that means the Presidential race would span from now 'till November. So I propose we move all the primaries up. I'd say we have the first primary be in April. Oh, and there should be a rule that forbids anyone from running or campaigning in a non-election year. That is, candidacies cannot be announced, or endorsed, or advertised, until January 1st.

Why do you hate freedom, and by extension, America?

Every time I start to think about how silly our system is, all I have to do is remind myself how arcane, convoluted and broken yours is.

[Guardsman Bass]

There's no need for a primary system at all. We could just have a French-style presidential system, where multiple party members are allowed on the ballot, and we have a national election in November. The French then have a runoff if no-one takes a clear majority, but we could simplify it even further by allowing instant-runoff voting. No idiotically undemocratic primary season, it shortens the campaign season, slashes the amount of the money necessary to campaign, and most importantly of all might put all those assholes on cable news out of a job.

Are you sure? From what I've looked up, it looks more like one candidate per party is generally the case; Sarkozy, for example, was elected as the candidate for the UMP by voting UMP members (in his case, he was running unopposed, but presumably other potential candidates can run against him for the nomination of the UMP). You don't have multiple candidates from the same party running in their general election (although I may have misread you wrong; are you talking about "multiple candidates from a single party", or "multiple candidates from multiples parties with one candidate per party, with one candidate per party"?).

The thing is, short of putting strong spending caps and limitations on advertising (like a complete ban on television advertising for or against a candidate until a very short time before an election, or a ban, period), I don't see how you can get spending on the nomination battles down without dropping any sense of "democratic-ness" from the nomination. Ultimately, the national and state parties have to mobilize on a candidate, dedicating their resources to him or her, so you need to get a nominee somehow.

I'm slightly wary of a nation-wide nomination fight on a single day. For one thing, without limitations like the one above, you would have to spend even more money to get your message across on a national scale, and campaign nation-wide. Or, you would have to do a version of what Giuliani had been hoping to do - focus your attentions on either a few big states, or a cluster of possibly sympathetic states in order to get enough victories to take the nomination on the date of the National Primary. In the meantime, candidates who already have a good deal of name recognition and support from the party establishments (meaning a better ability to raise funds off the bat) would get an enormous boost from this situation, since they wouldn't have to do what Huckabee tried to do (and partially what Obama did) in "leap-frogging" off of primary victories in order to raise more funding and support.

[Flagg]

No, Clinton actually went to Florida on election day. So she most assuredly did campaign there.

AFAIK, she only went there after the polls closed in order to declare "victory".
And to be fair, in the run up to the Florida election, Obama did a national ad buy which therefore also ran in Florida.

Hmm, defending Clinton seems almost as strange as defending Bush - I can't believe I'm doing it

And the guy from Newsweek that Olbermann had on yesterday also said that they are expecting the Clinton campaign to sue if they try to redo the Florida and Michigan Primaries.

Are you sure about that? I remember video of her getting off the plane in early afternoon when the polls were still open.

[HemlockGrey]

Are you sure? From what I've looked up, it looks more like one candidate per party is generally the case; Sarkozy, for example, was elected as the candidate for the UMP by voting UMP members (in his case, he was running unopposed, but presumably other potential candidates can run against him for the nomination of the UMP). You don't have multiple candidates from the same party running in their general election (although I may have misread you wrong; are you talking about "multiple candidates from a single party", or "multiple candidates from multiples parties with one candidate per party, with one candidate per party"?).

I'm hardly an expert on French presidential politics but I do know in the past multiple Rally for the Republic candidates have run against each other in the general election. Either way, I think doing away with the primary system entirely and running it all at once in November would be beneficial. It'd split up the parties a bit, but that would just end up giving the nation a little more choice. Instead of having to pick between McCain and Obama/Clinton, everyone would have a legitimate choice of picking between McCain, Romney, Paul, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Huckabee, and of course the effervescent Mike Gravel. It would factionalize the party-presidential race a bit but you'd end up with an actual spectrum of viewpoints to pick from on election day instead of having the choice whittled away to two somewhat similar broad candidates.

Obviously the key here might be to force everyone who has the requisite qualifications to get on the ballot to accept public funding, so everybody's on the same level playing field.

There's probably a thousand little holes in this that I haven't seen, but I think it would go a huge way towards cutting down on the interminable election season and on offering up a lot more diversity in the November election.

[Guardsman Bass]

Are you sure? From what I've looked up, it looks more like one candidate per party is generally the case; Sarkozy, for example, was elected as the candidate for the UMP by voting UMP members (in his case, he was running unopposed, but presumably other potential candidates can run against him for the nomination of the UMP). You don't have multiple candidates from the same party running in their general election (although I may have misread you wrong; are you talking about "multiple candidates from a single party", or "multiple candidates from multiples parties with one candidate per party, with one candidate per party"?).

I'm hardly an expert on French presidential politics but I do know in the past multiple Rally for the Republic candidates have run against each other in the general election. Either way, I think doing away with the primary system entirely and running it all at once in November would be beneficial. It'd split up the parties a bit, but that would just end up giving the nation a little more choice. Instead of having to pick between McCain and Obama/Clinton, everyone would have a legitimate choice of picking between McCain, Romney, Paul, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Huckabee, and of course the effervescent Mike Gravel. It would factionalize the party-presidential race a bit but you'd end up with an actual spectrum of viewpoints to pick from on election day instead of having the choice whittled away to two somewhat similar broad candidates.

But then it would seem that you would get the flipside of that effect as well; you'd take a race of parties and candidates and simply turn it into a race of candidates. That sounds better than I think it really would be; I mean, do you really want an American equivalent of United Russia running the country (not in terms of authoritarianism, but in terms of the heavy "personality" politics)?

I think, if you did that, you'd get two outcomes for the major parties; either they would fragment along personality lines, which would make coalition building rather difficult after the election; or they would pick their own "favorite" out of the candidates running on their name, which is essentially the same thing as picking a nominee sans at least the pretense offered by the primaries (or, in other words, would you rather have the primaries pick who is going to receive the DNC and state parties' election resources, or Howard Dean?).

Obviously the key here might be to force everyone who has the requisite qualifications to get on the ballot to accept public funding, so everybody's on the same level playing field.

True, and I would be in favor of that with spending caps and reforms of the public financing system. However, that still doesn't resolve the issue above - of how to divvy up the national and state parties' resources if no candidate is allowed to "lock" the nomination for a party - since even if they are barred from campaigning directly for a candidate, the national and state parties can still do a lot of other stuff to support their candidate, like "get out the vote" operations and advocacy ads targeting issues that their opponent holds. And that means that either the national parties are probably going to disintegrate in this system (which means you'll get more trouble building a coalition in the legislature for your agenda as President after the election), or the big parties will pick an unofficial "favorite" to dedicate their resources too, which is the same thing as picking a nominee sans any attempt at democratic choice in the party's choice.

You might be able to rectify this in some ways, I suppose. You could have the state parties vote on who to fight for (which would be similar to a primary, but probably less representational), and have the national party decide on the basis of a vote by party members nation-wide. I still think you would either get two "privileged" candidates in a system a la the current system, or a heavily factionalized race which would make governance extremely difficult after the election (and would probably re-inforce a trend towards a strong presidency, if the legislature can't agree on anything).

There's probably a thousand little holes in this that I haven't seen, but I think it would go a huge way towards cutting down on the interminable election season and on offering up a lot more diversity in the November election.

I'm in favor of anything that clamps down on the cost and time that is spent in the primary season, but I just don't think the above will work that well.

Personally, what I'd like to see would be for a combination of spending caps/limitations on advertising (which might be difficult to get past the Supreme Court if someone challenges it, but they've been mostly indulgent of the FEC, which allowed limitations on television ads), and the set-up of some closely spaced regional "super-primaries" (in which the state parties of a respective area, like the Southwest, would get together to set up one big primary for their respective area). That way, you limit the amount of time spent on the primary season (particularly if you limit the way they can openly campaign with the above limitations), and hopefully limit the money (although, of course, there's always the chance that there will be subversion, possibly by using non-party groups like the 527s to do all the heavy hitting beforehand).

Or, we could, you know, just do a combination of severe limitations on advertising (i.e. spending caps and so forth), and completely abolish the primary system. Instead, you could have the states focus on electing their delegates to the Convention, then simply have all the delegates decide on a candidate at the Convention. That's what they are for, after all; the primary system's hegemony has basically turned them into a rubber stamp, but I think they could be put to good use.

[D.Turtle]

I'm failing to see how "buying a national ad" translates into "campaigning in Florida".

I said that neither Obama nor Clinton had actively campaigned in Florida. In other words, I do not think that the national ad buy in any way was campaigning in Florida.

Are you sure about that? I remember video of her getting off the plane in early afternoon when the polls were still open.

Googling a bit, what I found was that she apparently went to two fund-raisers in Florida after her defeat in South Carolina (Here is an admittedly biased site that mentions that). On the day of the primary she apparently had an event at 7 PM, while some of the polls still were open (until 8 PM).

That might not have been directly breaking the rule of no campaigning, but it was clearly breaking the spirit of those rules.

[General Zod]

I said that neither Obama nor Clinton had actively campaigned in Florida. In other words, I do not think that the national ad buy in any way was campaigning in Florida.

Then why mention it at all when it was said in the context of "being fair"?

[D.Turtle]

Then why mention it at all when it was said in the context of "being fair"?

I mentioned it, because in my opinion neither campaign actively campaigned in Florida, but both campaigns did do a few things that raised their visibility in Florida before the election.

In fact, both campaigns accused the other of breaking the no-campaigning rule.

Thats why I mentioned it "to be fair."

[Coyote]

Now, remember that Obama made the pledge to take public funding if McCain does the same (and McCain kinda has to because of his own financial situation and the law he helped write, the McCain-Feingold election reform law).

This is not true. Obama never pledged to take public funding if his opponent did - he just said that he would be willing to talk about it.

He did say that he'd hold himself to it if McCain did the same, as I mentioned. But, yes, they'd have to agree to meet & talk first. I think part of the deal was also to promise not to allow or encourage the notorious "527 organizations" from serving as attack dogs.

If McCain agrees to these terms, it lifts his financial ceiling but lowers Obama's... however, it limits McCain's ability to smear Obama through 3rd parties... while Obama has not been prone to do any smearing at all. McCain needs someone to smear Obama while appearing to keep his own hands clean...

[Coyote]

Speaking of smears, was there anything to the rumor that it was Hillary's campaign, not Obama's, that told the Canadians not to worry about anti-NAFTA posturing, and HRC tried to pin it on Obama?

[Patrick Degan]

If McCain agrees to these terms, it lifts his financial ceiling but lowers Obama's... however, it limits McCain's ability to smear Obama through 3rd parties... while Obama has not been prone to do any smearing at all. McCain needs someone to smear Obama while appearing to keep his own hands clean...

Silly boy, that's what Rush Limbaugh and FoxNazi are for.

[Covenant]

Speaking of smears, was there anything to the rumor that it was Hillary's campaign, not Obama's, that told the Canadians not to worry about anti-NAFTA posturing, and HRC tried to pin it on Obama?

Yes, there was. The Canadians are apparently rather peevish about their memos and such being used for warfare over in the US, but it was Hillary's campaign to called the Canadians, whereas it was the Canadians who got ahold, through the Chicago counsul, of an Obama staffer (not the candidate, who may really have never known such a conversation took place).

[CmdrWilkens]

Now, remember that Obama made the pledge to take public funding if McCain does the same (and McCain kinda has to because of his own financial situation and the law he helped write, the McCain-Feingold election reform law).

This is not true. Obama never pledged to take public funding if his opponent did - he just said that he would be willing to talk about it.

He did say that he'd hold himself to it if McCain did the same, as I mentioned.

Absolutely false.

"I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." (September 2007)

and

"I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits" (February 2008)

Those quotes represent the only direct quotes from Obama as to how he is approaching the situation. He never has pledged to unilaterally take any specific action based on any action of McCain's. More importantly while I would be loathe to do so parsing the first quote, which is the source of this whole dilemna, one can easily come to the conclusion that the pledge is to preseve the system and NOT to participate in the system. Now the second quote definately signals a willingness to agree to spending limits but Obama has NEVER made a unliateral pledge to accept public financing if McCain does.

[Coyote]

This is not true. Obama never pledged to take public funding if his opponent did - he just said that he would be willing to talk about it.

He did say that he'd hold himself to it if McCain did the same, as I mentioned.

Absolutely false.

"I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." (September 2007)

and

"I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits" (February 2008)

Those quotes represent the only direct quotes from Obama as to how he is approaching the situation. He never has pledged to unilaterally take any specific action based on any action of McCain's. More importantly while I would be loathe to do so parsing the first quote, which is the source of this whole dilemna, one can easily come to the conclusion that the pledge is to preseve the system and NOT to participate in the system. Now the second quote definately signals a willingness to agree to spending limits but Obama has NEVER made a unliateral pledge to accept public financing if McCain does.

Okay, perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Or, mis-communicating. I didn't think that Obama unilaterally announced an intent to limit himself based on public funds, I am trying to say that "Obama said he'd limit himself to public funds if McCain did the same" (ie, McCain also has to limit himself to public funds).

That is why I am wondering if I am missing a nuance. It seems that I am talking about "rain", and you and Turtle are talking about "water falling from the sky".

[Fire Fly]

That is why I am wondering if I am missing a nuance. It seems that I am talking about "rain", and you and Turtle are talking about "water falling from the sky".

Obama is not going to unilaterally limit himself until the issue of 527s can be addressed; that is why he wants to negotiate campaign funds. And frankly, I don't think he should limit himself to public financing because the right wing machine is going to pull all of its strings to smear him. How is he going to fight a two front battle with McCain and the 527s, who have are massing a war chest of the hundreds of millions?

[D.Turtle]

That is why I am wondering if I am missing a nuance. It seems that I am talking about "rain", and you and Turtle are talking about "water falling from the sky".

The thing is, that taking public financing now (for the General election) would be advantageous only for one side: the Republicans. Why should Obama limit himself to the 80 or so Million dollars he would get from a publicly financed campaign if he can raise much more through hundreds of thousands or even millions of donors? Why give up the huge advantage of the public support he has - and the fund-raising tools he has built up?

In fact, if you look at the quote Coyote provided, Obama actually could make a good case that his campaign IS a publicly financed campaign, because IIRC 90% of his donations are less than $100. In other words his campaign is not financed by the "big-money" fundraisers as was the case in the past (the $2000 per plate dinners and such), but by normal working Americans.

The short version: Only the Republicans are interested in having both campaigns only funded by the public-financing system, because it means more money for them and less money for the Democrats. It would be idiotic for the Democrats to agree to a publicly financed general election.

[CmdrWilkens]

Okay, perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Or, mis-communicating. I didn't think that Obama unilaterally announced an intent to limit himself based on public funds, I am trying to say that "Obama said he'd limit himself to public funds if McCain did the same" (ie, McCain also has to limit himself to public funds).

That is why I am wondering if I am missing a nuance. It seems that I am talking about "rain", and you and Turtle are talking about "water falling from the sky".

Okay here's where I think we have the disconnect:

Promising to prusue an agreement does not indicate any of the following:
a) WHAT the agreement will cover
b) WHEN it will be enacted
c) WHETHER it will be enacted

Promising to pursue an agreeement, which is the only promise here, does not obligate Obama to any specific set of limits. Again if McCain suddenly agrees to take public money (which he might anyway) this is not a pledge that Obama will immediately recriprocate. Rather its a statement that, shoudl Obama be the nominee, he will attempt to get an agreement for spending limits, fundraising limits, 527 support, etc.

There is a wide gap between Obama saying he wants to reach an agreement and everyone else defining what that agreement is. let me re-emphasize that. Obama has never articulated WHAT the agreement is so its hard to claim he is renigging on an agreement whose terms have NEVER been discussed.

[Mr Bean]

On the issue of Publicly financed campaigns. Yes I think we should do them, or rather I believe that in 2010, not in mid-stream after millions have already been spent.

Personally I'd love some sort of hard and fast caps(IE House Representatives are given 1 million dollars and can only spend 1 million dollars on their reelection campaign each go around which prevents them from buying adds NOW for a campaign in @#$@4 November, Senator's can have five, and lets face it the President's need once for the primaries and once for the general)

Anyone who gets 4% or more of the vote the previous election is bound by the public financing laws hereafter, thus allow the Green's or the Libritarians or the Communists their chance at becoming political party number 3 in America. Sadly this will never happen thanks to two things I call the Democratic and Republican parties. However we might someday(Not this day) see a Publicly only financed Presidential campaign.

[CmdrWilkens]

The funny thing is that this would be the first year with any candidate potentially refusing matching funds for the general election. Priory to Forbes in 96 almost all of them took federal funds in the primary as well. The influence of money has always been about the advocacy of outside groups who don't have spending or donation limits and that is where the real negotiations neccessarry to have a true publicly financed only election come in.

[mordack]

Hillary: no 'do over' in Florida and and Michigan

US News' Ken Walsh asked Hillary Clinton about the possibility of "do overs" in Michigan and Florida. Clinton responded:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

So there you go. The train wreck remains on schedule.

As for the 'Florida Democrats forced by evil Republicans' meme she's parroting, it's simply not true.
When the law that moved the date forward passed the Florida House unanimously, the claim that the FL Democrats were forced is ludicrous.

FWIW, the Democrats voted unanimously for this because it was attached to a larger voting reform bill.

MSNBC

Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:19 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Primaries, Michigan, Florida

From NBC’s Ken Strickland
Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson today wrote a letter asking DNC Chairman Howard Dean to either seat their delegates in accordance with our primary results, or pay for the state to hold a new primary. Without a resolution, Nelson said, "We're coming on the biggest train wreck you've ever seen."

"If they go to the Democratic convention and stiff arm the Florida delegation,” Nelson said, “how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee ... only two months after the Democratic convention?”

Nelson also told reporters outside the Senate Chamber, "The DNC has a responsibility because they took it out on Florida, not what Florida Democrats did, but what the Republican legislature -- signed into law by the Republican Governor -- did in changing the date."

He says the measure that authorized moving the primary to January, in violation of DNC rules, was part of a broader election machine reform bill. Nelson, a Clinton supporter, adds that the Florida state legislature's Democratic leader offered an amendment to move back to Feb. 5th, but was defeated.

"So the Florida Democrats come into this with clean hands," he pleaded. "But I couldn't get Howard Dean and the DNC last summer to understand this."

This is something the state party argued in August of 2007 before the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. The committee, though, rejected the argument, saying there was not a “good faith effort” made by Florida Democrats to defeat the measure.

Nelson says Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist agreed to cooperate to set up the elections if someone else picked up the tab. The last primary cost about $18 million, according to Nelson, with 1.75 million Democrats voting.

"The principle here is one person, one vote," he said calling up the ghost of the 2000 Bush-Gore election. "And by the way, we're a little sensitive about that principle in the state of Florida. Do I need to remind you about that in 2000?"

I live in FL, and I can't stand how each and every large-scale election since 2000 seems to have some sort of drama attached to it.