After a growing buzzonlineand on the streets, FL Dems have mixed feelings on the DNC proposal of caucuses as a resolution to the delegate debacle from our primary. While the FL Chair says no, I have been contacted by more than one grassroots organizer seeking support for a push for caucuses here. If FL delegates are to be seated, the DNC appears to be signaling that caucuses are the only way.
I couldn't agree more.
UPDATE: Florida Kossacks writes "Let's amend our delegate selection plan to allocate our delegates based on a caucus to be held in early April."
Submitted by Brian A. on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:02am.
I'm not up to speed on exactly how Florida and Michigan got stripped of representation, but what's done is done. It would be ridiculous to go back now and change the rules after the fact.
I could have easily missed it, but I did not see anything in your links that shows "FL Dems have mixed feelings".
In the article for that particular link, it says, "Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said the party has no intention of holding another election."
Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 10:14am.
Florida Kossack wrote January 15th,
Are you going to let some talking head pundit tell you that your vote doesn't count, so don't bother? Please do not listen to that bull. We are having an election in Florida. The results will be tallied.
...
So, as the Florida Democratic Party has asked, I am going out today to "Make it Count!" I can't wait to put that "I Voted" sticker on. I hope all my fellow Floridians will do the same on or before January 29th. You'll be glad you did.
Because Edwards didn't win Florida FK wants a re-do? I appreciate FK's frustration. I do think FK should have thought this out a little more.
Don't get me wrong, I too would have voted for Edwards during the Florida primary. By the time I voted in Tennessee, he was no longer a candidate.
Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 10:21am.
RE Capital News Service,
Some party insiders are urging the party to hold a separate caucus vote to select the delegates,
Should the "party insiders" speak out a little louder?
“1.72 million Democrats, 42 percent, the highest ever, came out and voiced their opinion,” Thurman said. “When we go to Denver and have the opportunity to express it, it will be because it’s the will of the people in Florida. And I can’t believe that there is not a reason why, for our democracy and for everything we believe in, that we would not want those votes counted.”
Democrats will caucus at the Congressional District level March 1st to apportion delegates based on how many votes a candidate got in the particular district.
Someone with a name speaks out. There may or may not be a Florida caucus. I, as a Floridian for seventeen years, would want "my" vote to count, not some caucus attendee not respresenting my vote.
Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:19pm.
Someone with a name speaks out. There may or may not be a Florida caucus. I, as a Floridian for seventeen years, would want "my" vote to count, not some caucus attendee not respresenting my vote.
Submitted by Carole Borges on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:26pm.
I was for them. My reasoning was that it was their party, so they got to make the rules. It's one reason why I felt turned off to parties. Shouldn't the people in each state decide when and who they vote for? I guess not.
The candidates knew what was going to happen, and they never complained. They went with the Party-line, so it doesn't seem right that they should bring this up just because they think it will be to their advantage. In a way that's also using the people. I mean first they were against the people when they didn't stand-up against the Party, now they are for them? Isn't that what we call flip-flopping.
If the Party goes back on itself now, it will give Clinton an advantage because as soon as she knew the race was getting close, she flew down to Florida to proclaim herself the champion of the people. Obama was out of all this. He did run some ads, as did Clinton, but I don't think any of his representatives were in Florida trying to get votes for him.
This whole thing is a problem caused by the Democratic Party. The people shouldn't be punished. The only problem I see is how to make the "real" primary election fair. A caucus with a one week lead time might be a reasonable compromise. That would give both candidates time to appear before Florida voters, to rally them personally.
It will be interesting to see how this all sorts out, but please let's hope it doesn't become a hanging chad fiasco. To me that's reason enough to let their ruling stand if it legally can.
Submitted by Eleanor A on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 2:10pm.
Here's an issue: It costs money to run elections. Lots of it. The tab will be at least a million dollars in a state like Florida, which is taxpayer money. Do we really want to hand the Republicans a stick like this with which to beat us?
Submitted by Carole Borges on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:46pm.
Thank god, I'm not running for President and that no one's right to vote is in my hands. I'm always willing to change my mind if something I learn later makes sense. If I agree to something I know is actually going to be a rule that affects other people, I usually do keep my word though.
Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:40pm.
We are talking about the DNC bylaws.
As one who has turned the wording of by laws inside out & upside down for years.
Some things you must do period..some things you cant do period.
All things in between are allowed...or not..then you fight until the ultimate power of the Convention decides.
If a caucus is held it could be 2 Fla delegations show up @ the convention...the caucus delegation & the primary delegation.Then you fight over which one gets seated.
1972 Ill...Daley's delegation vs Jesse's delegation..Jesse's was seated.
Submitted by StaceyDiamond on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 12:55pm.
Just Johnny, people have wondered where you have been. I assume you're in Fla? As for the infamous Fla. and Mich. , I think they should either award the delegates or leave it as is, a causcus after the fact is silly.
Submitted by Terry Troll on Sat, 2008/02/09 - 5:25pm.
I believe it was CNN that said last night that the do over in Florida would cost close to $4MM. I hope we don't write off the voters in Florida. 2000 showed they might come in handy if we don't peeve them.
They could seat half the delegates, which is what the GOP is doing to punish states that monkey with their primaries.
This suggestion might work. While still giving the same percentage of delegates per candidate, lowering the number of delegates will allow the votes to count, just not be as influential.
I'm not up to speed on exactly how Florida and Michigan got stripped of representation, but what's done is done. It would be ridiculous to go back now and change the rules after the fact.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
I could have easily missed it, but I did not see anything in your links that shows "FL Dems have mixed feelings".
In the article for that particular link, it says, "Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said the party has no intention of holding another election."
@bizgrrl: updated post with more links, enjoy.
@Brian A: Agreed. Don't seat the delegates. However, if there is a push to do it there should be a caucus (this FL dem is saying it, anyway) to do so.
Florida Kossack wrote January 15th,
...
Because Edwards didn't win Florida FK wants a re-do? I appreciate FK's frustration. I do think FK should have thought this out a little more.
Don't get me wrong, I too would have voted for Edwards during the Florida primary. By the time I voted in Tennessee, he was no longer a candidate.
RE Capital News Service,
Should the "party insiders" speak out a little louder?
Someone with a name speaks out. There may or may not be a Florida caucus. I, as a Floridian for seventeen years, would want "my" vote to count, not some caucus attendee not respresenting my vote.
Someone with a name speaks out. There may or may not be a Florida caucus. I, as a Floridian for seventeen years, would want "my" vote to count, not some caucus attendee not respresenting my vote.
So what would you propose?
I was for them. My reasoning was that it was their party, so they got to make the rules. It's one reason why I felt turned off to parties. Shouldn't the people in each state decide when and who they vote for? I guess not.
The candidates knew what was going to happen, and they never complained. They went with the Party-line, so it doesn't seem right that they should bring this up just because they think it will be to their advantage. In a way that's also using the people. I mean first they were against the people when they didn't stand-up against the Party, now they are for them? Isn't that what we call flip-flopping.
If the Party goes back on itself now, it will give Clinton an advantage because as soon as she knew the race was getting close, she flew down to Florida to proclaim herself the champion of the people. Obama was out of all this. He did run some ads, as did Clinton, but I don't think any of his representatives were in Florida trying to get votes for him.
This whole thing is a problem caused by the Democratic Party. The people shouldn't be punished. The only problem I see is how to make the "real" primary election fair. A caucus with a one week lead time might be a reasonable compromise. That would give both candidates time to appear before Florida voters, to rally them personally.
It will be interesting to see how this all sorts out, but please let's hope it doesn't become a hanging chad fiasco. To me that's reason enough to let their ruling stand if it legally can.
Here's an issue: It costs money to run elections. Lots of it. The tab will be at least a million dollars in a state like Florida, which is taxpayer money. Do we really want to hand the Republicans a stick like this with which to beat us?
Thank god, I'm not running for President and that no one's right to vote is in my hands. I'm always willing to change my mind if something I learn later makes sense. If I agree to something I know is actually going to be a rule that affects other people, I usually do keep my word though.
We are talking about the DNC bylaws.
As one who has turned the wording of by laws inside out & upside down for years.
Some things you must do period..some things you cant do period.
All things in between are allowed...or not..then you fight until the ultimate power of the Convention decides.
If a caucus is held it could be 2 Fla delegations show up @ the convention...the caucus delegation & the primary delegation.Then you fight over which one gets seated.
1972 Ill...Daley's delegation vs Jesse's delegation..Jesse's was seated.
Just Johnny, people have wondered where you have been. I assume you're in Fla? As for the infamous Fla. and Mich. , I think they should either award the delegates or leave it as is, a causcus after the fact is silly.
They could seat half the delegates, which is what the GOP is doing to punish states that monkey with their primaries.
At this point, nothing is going to make everyone happy, but I do think the electeds in FL and MI should have more say in this than we bystanders.
I believe it was CNN that said last night that the do over in Florida would cost close to $4MM. I hope we don't write off the voters in Florida. 2000 showed they might come in handy if we don't peeve them.
R. Asked, So what would you propose?
This suggestion might work. While still giving the same percentage of delegates per candidate, lowering the number of delegates will allow the votes to count, just not be as influential.
Post new comment