New at Reason
Steve Chapman sifts through the morass of the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan, and all of the spin that's brought the party to this point.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Daniel | March 10, 2008, 7:48am | #
I don't know about Michigan but in Florida, it was the Republican controlled state Congress that changed the date. If I remember correctly, the Democrats voted against the date change (at least the majority did).This means they are being punished for something beyond their control.
A Pants Suit | March 10, 2008, 8:15am | #
Billery will stop at nothing to win the nomination. She is even offering the vice presidency to Obama, when he is winning. I mean, WTF?I find it humorous that one of these idiot Democrats will soon be president. They are the party of change after all.
ek | March 10, 2008, 8:29am | #
To Deaniel:The Reps did have a majority in the vote but most (if not all, I can't remember) dems voted for it. It was slipped into a bill that required a paper trail and diligent vote counting, two things that no Floridian Dem would vote against. So, although the Florida Dems are equally to blame, they probably felt a primary problem would be preferable to another Supreme Court Presidential Appointment, as in 2000.
ek | March 10, 2008, 8:42am | #
Sorry, that should read:To Daniel.
I double checked, and it was passed unanimously.
Also, the primary bit was added by a first-year Dem, someone who is probably getting quite the brow beating from the other Florida Dems.
some dude | March 10, 2008, 9:38am | #
Why do state legislatures have anything to do with the primary process? Political Parties should be private entities and make their own decisions on how to nominate candidates. Do the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties, etc have this kind of problem?thoreau | March 10, 2008, 9:46am | #
Of course, the DNC could simply surrender and let those who broke the rules get away with it—thus assuring that next time, there will be primaries in December or November or October instead of January.We might as well start the 2012 primaries right now.
Michael | March 10, 2008, 9:55am | #
So when Hillary is the nominee of the Democrats, will the cry be "Selected, not Elected!"?Ironic, wouldn't it be?
J sub D | March 10, 2008, 9:58am | #
Why do state legislatures have anything to do with the primary process? Political Parties should be private entities and make their own decisions on how to nominate candidates. Do the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties, etc have this kind of problem?Do the aforementioned parties receive taxpayer subsidies to conduct party business? After all, a primary is nothing more than party business.
Of course not. The incumbent slugs of the two major parties love the system as it is. Free publicity, plus the taxpayers pick up part of the expenses in the nominating process. I'm disgusted by the whole incestual relationship.
ek | March 10, 2008, 10:01am | #
Michael:Nah, it would be "ironic" if it were Gore. If Hillary gets the nomination without getting the popular vote that would just be "sad".
LarryA | March 10, 2008, 10:12am | #
So people who can't run a primary election will soon be in charge of the U.S., and will think they're in charge of the world.What a way to start Monday.
Legate Damar | March 10, 2008, 10:42am | #
Who are the wizards that came up with stripping transgressors of all their delegates?As much as it pains me to praise the RNC, taking away half the delegates is a non-trivial punishment (especially to larger states) without the byproduct of telling the common folk, "Because of decisions made by people you've never heard of, we don't care what you think. But be sure to vote for us in the general this fall."
Martin Owens | March 10, 2008, 11:11am | #
New bumper sticker for 2009:" Don't blame me, I live in Michigan ( or Florida)"
Mike M. | March 10, 2008, 11:30am | #
This probably wouldn't even be a major issue if it weren't for the entire ridiculous process the Democrats use to pick their candidate, such as relying on too many caucuses, the proportional delegate selection instead of winner take all states, and having an utterly absurd 20% of the delegates assigned as so-called "superdelegates".If I were a Democrat, I think I'd be even more ticked off about having that many superdelegates than the whole Michigan-Florida debacle.
thoreau | March 10, 2008, 11:36am | #
Who are the wizards that came up with stripping transgressors of all their delegates?Wizards of the Coastal Elite!
/geek
Elemenope | March 10, 2008, 11:47am | #
As much as it pains me to praise the RNC, taking away half the delegates is a non-trivial punishment (especially to larger states) without the byproduct of telling the common folk, "Because of decisions made by people you've never heard of, we don't care what you think. But be sure to vote for us in the general this fall."Yeah, but at least in Michigan not every candidate was even on the ballot...IIRC, Obama et al. sans Clinton and Kucinich were merely following the rules by omitting themselves. Should they be punished for following the rules?
That doesn't seem fair. That isn't to say a redo with all the candidates on the ballot is not a good idea...but counting them as is seems just slightly to the left of completely ridiculous.
Chris Potter | March 10, 2008, 12:43pm | #
Even a re-do is going to favor Hillary, since she would be seen as the one who made the DNC compromise with FL & MI, while Obama stood idly by. All the king's horses and all the king's men...I am not going to say this is better than nude women's oil wrestling, but it is damn close - I hope Obama ends up with... 23 more delegates, Clinton has fewer popular votes only WITHOUT Florida, and if Michigan is included it just gets too confusing!
Legate Damar | March 10, 2008, 2:09pm | #
L through P,My comment was (badly) aimed at a point further in the past. I think that now that they have these rules, they'd be foolish not to follow them. My intended point was, "before it was determined which (if any) states would defy the rule, and before it turned out to be relevant, why did the DNC institue such a harsh penalty?" The RNC sanctions seemed appropriate without being completely disenfranchising. If the DNC did it to "ensure" that no one dared defy the rules (and their sanction would do a better job of that than the RNC's,) then the question is "what was the plan if their bluff got called?" If it was to just fold and roll over, they shouldn't have put themselves in that position, lest they look... well, like the DNC of the last 10 years.
Richard | March 10, 2008, 2:46pm | #
Here in Michigan, neither Obama nor Edwards (who was still running in January) was on the ballot. The Democratic ballot was Clinton (who "won"), Kucinich, or "uncommitted," and "uncommitted" still got 40% of the vote. (Who the hell stands in line in Michigan in January to vote "uncommitted"?) FYI, Hillary broke the rules by even having her name on the ballot.The foolishness in Michigan was bipartisan. It was pushed by (Democrat) Grandholm through the (Democrat) legislature, but the GOP didn't put up a fight.
I hear the RNC is waiving the sanction of taking away half the Michigan delegates, since even though Romney won (winner-take-all), he's already dropped out and endorsed McCain, so it doesn't make any difference anyway.
When will these fools realize that in a close contest (which is the only time it matters) like this one, it's the last states to vote (after all the also-rans drop out) that have the greater influence?
Chris S. | March 10, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Legate Damar-You ask why didn't the DNC just strip the offending states of 50% of their delegates rather than 100% of their delegates. The answer is because the states that move their primaries up to January don't care about conferring delegates. They care about conferring momentum. The 2008 Democratic primary race is one of the rare cases in which the delegate margin between the two leading candidates might actually turn out to be so narrow that a single state's delegates could actually matter.
But most nomination contests aren't that close. Most of the time (at least recently), one candidate builds up a critical mass of momentum from wins in the early states, and then starts winning everywhere, and the necessary delegates inevitably follow. So if a state wants to be influential, they should move up to the begining of the primary calendar, when momentum is most important. As long as there are *some* delegates at stake, and the candidates actually campaign there, those primaries will confer momentum.
So the only way to punish the states enough that they might think twice about moving up is to take away so many delegates that the candidates don't even bother campaigning there. On the GOP side, 50% clearly wasn't enough to deter the candidates from campaigning in FL & MI. Those states ended up being plenty influential (moreso than they would have been if they'd voted later and had more delegates), so the FL & MI GOP got exactly what they wanted.
Faloi | March 10, 2008, 3:56pm | #
I just want to get my hand on some good "Re-Nominate Obama" bumper stickers.joe | March 10, 2008, 4:03pm | #
Something else the DNC did to try to get states not to jump to the front of the line was to offer a 30% delegate bonus to states that held their contests after May 5.If Michigan and Florida schedule re-votes, and get a bonus over states that didn't break the rules, that would be a kick in the pants.
Paul | March 10, 2008, 4:10pm | #
We might as well start the 2012 primaries right now.Hillary already has.
Paul | March 10, 2008, 4:10pm | #
Something else the DNC did to try to get states not to jump to the front of the line was to offer a 30% delegate bonus to states that held their contests after May 5.Throw in a set of steak knives, you got yerself a deal.
bookworm | March 10, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Dick Morris believes that if Hillary steals the nomination, it will have repercussions for the Democrat Party beyond this election. Disenfranchised young people and blacks that supported Obama may leave the party.Hillary thinks she can remedy the whole thing by throwing the Obama people some crums by having Obama as her running mate. She has alot of gall.
Chad | March 10, 2008, 6:19pm | #
As a resident of Michigan, I sure hope our "vote" doesn't count. I know plenty of moderates who voted for McCain in the Republican primary because we couldn't vote for Obama in the Democratic one.The results of that election are obviously meaningless.
Eddy | March 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #
Disenfranchised young people and blacks that supported Obama may leave the party.Psst, hey kid, over here. So, I hear your lookin' for something. I tell ya what, I got this party, and man it can blow your mind. Trust me, once you know what liberty really is, you'll never want to go back to that cheap authoritarian crap. Don't get me wrong, the authoritarian power trip is nice but it just doesn't last much longer than the election. So what do you say kid? Come on, try it, just one deep breath of freedom. That's all I'm askin'.
bagehot | March 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #
Political parties, like pro sports leagues, are private enterprises that can do as theyplease, as long as it's within the law. That said, here's a thought: five jumbo primaries in five months, with the first four allocated by a computer-generated lottery. That way, the
candidates are compelled to maintain a national message, and pandering is rendered
futile.
Jason Rowsey | March 10, 2008, 11:25pm | #
In my humble opinion, the elections in the two states were very different.In Michigan, the only major candidate of the democratic party was Hillary Clinton. It would not be fair in any sense of the word to seat those delegates.
However, in Florida, none of the major candidates campaigned in the state. Hillary Clinton won that contest without campaigning and had just as much of a chance to win as the other candidates. I do believe that those delegates should be seated.
rm2muv | March 11, 2008, 12:29am | #
Jason:Even in Florida, the vote was clearly unfair to Obama. He was, then, the relatively unknown newcomer. Wherever he has had an opportunity to campaign and make himself known, he has closed the gap that Clinton held by virtue of her own notoriety.
Obama followed the rules and his voters didn't even have a real chance to vote, understanding that it would not count anyway.
Both states need to caucus or hold a real primary in which candidates are given an equal opportunity.
Wang | March 11, 2008, 9:53am | #
so bad! why you do so complicated things? I just don't understand it why you want to make so intricate things?typical democrats if you don't like the result change the rules and recount, the supreme court wouldn't let them get away with it in 2000 and hopefully if they try it again the public will punish the democrats by turning away from voting for any of their candidates.