Should the Florida Democratic primary "mean anything"?

On the one hand, since no delegates are awarded in the Florida Democratic primary one can say it is meaningless.

On the other hand, Florida Democrats don't seem to think it's meaningless at all. They are already voting absentee in gigantic numbers and will turn out big on election day, so they want to be heard. Though damaged, the primary is still the only available forum for them to formally voice their preferences in a campaign in which they are interested.

I'm not saying their votes should count as directly apportioning delegates. But I am puzzled by the contention that the voices of a MILLION Democrats in a key swing state, in a contest where everyone is on the ballot, are "meaningless." (A lot of concerns over democracy and disenfranchisement are highly selective on both sides. After Florida, Clinton will have received the most Democratic votes cast in the primaries by a huge margin. I can understand why one might hope that those real votes will be described by the media as meaningless, but those votes are at least as meaningful to Democratic Presidential prospects than votes in, say, South Carolina, a state we will not even contest in the general election. Florida Democrats probably have a better idea of who can win Florida in the general than I do.)

Added on Edit: The issue is whether the will of the people in Florida should be treated by the media as meaningful. The rules are already in place, so it's not a question of whether the rules should have been different. Essentially, should the media cover the primaries as being all about the will of the people, all about party rules, or somewhere in between.

Couldn't be the 50 state strategy at work, could it?

Nah....

come Nov 5th. So yes it does mean something.

Clarify.

No one is. Nothing is. This primary is deeply flawed - in more states than Florida. He screwed up.

Your attacks on me sound simplistic, like Johnny one-note who doesn't understand the depth of what Florida did.

It's ok, I don't mind.

Hatherine Harris also thought some deadline was more important that counting the votes. same mentality, if for different reasons.

I would have liked to see both sides work this thing out. I agreed with the Dean side initially.

I worry that there could be a backlash against the Dem Party - maybe a low turnout.

Now hear me out of this before you start attacking the 0 delegate thing

1 : Florida is 3 days after SC
2 : Hillary seems to be taking that by a very wide margin

Obama's victory if it happens in SC and it looks like it will, will be very shortlived. Regardless what you think Florida will matter to the msm and to the people around the country. We've lost the last 2 elections primarily because of Florida. People will notice if Hillary walks of with that massive vote.

Momentum if any stopped dead again for Obama.

Apparently a lot of the votes are already in, in Florida due to absentee and early voting, so 3 days is not a lot of time. I've heard Hillary's absentee and early voting has amounted to the region of approx 72% as Florida also has a huge older voter base and hispanic and latino base.

Obama has BIG problems here.

Any momentum from SC is shortlived because Hillary kills that 3 days later with Florida, you may say it has no delegates but it DOES matter. The perception by the MSM and the people will be all that matters. So in fact it is Hillary who gets the momentum going into ST, not Obama.

Hillary winning Florida by perhaps 30% would be a huge blow to Obama's campaign and the subsequent press.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1774

If you are big like Florida you can do anything you want. Right?

There were the people Bush robbed in 2000:

and sue the national party...all in the name of getting the Hillary is inevitable idea in front of the media.

No thought was given to the fact that the people lost their voice. They were warned, they laughed, they sued.

And we are all losers here now.

I am to see you take such joy in it. It is a day of losing for everyone.

Please!

You care about baiting me. When someone does that I say good-bye...

don't care to. I cannot believe that ANY democrat can be so cavalier about the right to vote. Anywhere in the US - not just Florida. NOTHING justifies messing with this right.

but blame the state party for not wanting to be patient.

This whole primary is undemocratic - people's votes are devalued.

Between a rock and a hard place, democrats chose the rock in order to get election reform, and voted for it.

They took a stand for the voters of the state on an issue they felt more important than the squabbles they would get into with the DNC.

Unlike the "present" votes Obama made in his state for political cover, the democrats of Florida took a stand.

Today, democrats are rocking the early vote, regardless of the DNC's inability to see through the problems with the republicans.

It was the Democratic governor and other state Dems who worked to get that early primary through.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1761

Granholm endorsed Hillary the very next day after she signed the bill to move up the primary.

She did not have to sign it, you know.

I probably should have put that in my post to avoid confusion.

Then they tried to play the victim.

They worked with them from early 2006 on. Then they blamed Dean for it.

"Florida Democrats are all for it"...March 2006. All for the early primary that far ahead.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1564

At the very least, they indicate what the voters want.

The leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties are shameful in denying hundreds of thousands of members of their parties from participating in the primary process - punishing them for mistakes made by state party leaders.

A national primary out of the control of party hacks is needed.

Both states had every warning not to break the rules. They did it anyway, and they did not care if the people lost their right to choose the nominee.

They wanted the power they thought they could get by having firsties.

May I ask you who you think should control the party's primaries?

If not the parties themselves, then who?

The people of Florida and Michigan deserve as much as anyone to be seated at that convention. Screw the state party, fine them but they should seat the delegates.

They knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it for one candidate's benefit.

it's what Obama bots think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4167590

...in the nominating process because of mistakes or obstinacy of state and national party leaders.

There should be no state primaries. A national primary on one day or one weekend where candidates are narrowed down to 4 or six or eight....

Then a national runoff on one day or one weekend to elect the President and Vice-President directly - no electoral college. And paper ballots.

Something like what most of not all of the rest of the world does.