Decision ‘08

A Do-Over? On What Grounds?

I was on record, at the time of the Florida primary, as follows:

Hillary wins big…considering that no one else campaigned in the state due to the DNC stripping Florida’s delegates, this is the biggest non-story of the night…however, if Michigan and Florida’s delegates end up getting seated somehow, Hillary is going to look like a genius…

Prescient? Perhaps…but I still don’t like it.

There is no good reason for Florida and Michigan to get ‘do-overs’. If the voters there were disenfranchised, they were disenfranchised by their state officials, who should be run out of town on a rail for their irresponsibility. The rules were known to everyone, and they chose to break them anyway. Now, we are going to bail them out?

Let the officials bear the consequences of the disgruntled millions whose votes don’t count. This whole notion of making up the rules as you go along is the stupidest way of selecting a candidate I have ever seen.

The Democratic race is a complete fiasco. It is clear to everyone who looks at this objectively that Barack Obama is the rightful nominee - but because he is ‘unelectable’ (as if Hillary is a prize in the electable category!), certain Democratic insiders will stop at nothing to derail his nomination.

And I’ve got no stake in an Obama candidacy - I think he probably will beat McCain handily if he is the nominee, and as I’ve stated before, I prefer Hillary on strictly partisan grounds…but this is a travesty.

To sum it up again: Florida and Michigan voters were disenfranchised by their own elected officials. They voted already, earlier than the rules allowed. Rules that were known by everyone. “Mulligans” are for poor golfers - they have no place in a presidential primary. And let’s sum up that conclusion again, too: this is a travesty…

19 Responses to “A Do-Over? On What Grounds?”

1 Peter Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I agree with you, except I think it is too early to call Obama the “rightful nominee” — especially after last week’s results. Sort of like a baseball team being ahead 7-3 in the eighth inning. Still to early to leave the stadium.

As for Mulligans — let’s just say they are an indispensable part of golf at my level.
2 Mark Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I’m so bad at golf there’s no point in mulligans, as I have no confidence my next shot would be any better than the first…
3 Ryan Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Agreed. The rules are certainly silly and stupid, but they *are* the rules. Senator Clinton did her very best to undermine the DNC at the time of those contests - there’s a reason her name was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. I can’t for the life of me imagine why Howard Dean is allowing her to get away with openly opposing the very rules she supposedly agreed to follow in the first place.
4 Mark Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I can only conclude that the Florida and Michigan officials are exerting tremdous pressure on Dean through either (a) blackmail, politically speaking, or (b) some sort of quid pro quo.

An alternative explanation is that Dean is among those who sees Obama as unelectable…
5 Scott Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Why the need for the conspiracy? Dean recognizes that he cannot allow the Florida delegation to be seated because of the rules in place at the time of the vote; he also recognizes that disenfranchising even 1% of the Democratic vote in Florida is potentially fatal. Thus, he needs to find a solution.
6 Mark Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
But it’s not Dean that disenfranchised them, it’s their own officials. He has the cover he needs, if he is forceful enough about it…
7 too many steves Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 5:29 am
There are only two solutions (needed only if you agree there is a problem):

1. Do not seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida.
2. Rerun the vote in those states.

I think #2 makes perfect sense, and here is why: the reason Michigan and Florida (and any other state) were banned from counting is that they held their primary before the earliest allowable date set by the Democrats via their national party. This was, I think, intended to ensure that Iowa and NH had their traditional “first in the nation” votes and that Super Tuesday was still, um, Super. I haven’t read transcripts of the discussion leading to these rules but I suspect the DNC leaders fully expected the nomination to be all but settled by February 6th, or, at the very least, by now. Re-doing Michigan and Florida is the only way to honor the original rules (by not counting their earlier results), to ensure a fair contest in those states, and to settle the nomination contest.

So schedule them at the end of the primary season and if, by then, they are unnecessary then cancel them. The “rules are rules” argument strikes me as silly in the sense that what the Democrats want is to select the best possible candidate to represent the party in the general election. Nothing else matters.
8 Fargus Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 6:37 am
The point, tms, wasn’t to preserve IA and NH’s places. The point was to stop the primaries from spiraling out of control into 2007. IA and NH were going to be first no matter what, because they have state laws that automatically react to other states moving their primaries up. Neither the DNC nor the RNC wanted the 2008 presidential primaries to be held in the summer of 2007, hence the penalties.
9 too many steves Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I find it interesting that Super Tuesday was held about a month earlier this cycle than last.

I still think that getting the best candidate is the objective of the primary/caucus system. If re-running Michigan and Florida moves them closer to that end then I say have at it.

That said, if I were king of the DNC/RNC I would change the system away from the democratic system they’ve been running lately back to one where the party leaders choose the candidate. Holding primaries and caucuses to vet the candidates is valuable - doing so tests them, their positions on the issues, and their message - but I wouldn’t let that be the method of selection. The parties should have full and complete control over who represents them in the general election. Give me the smoke-filled room of yesteryear. With so many states allowing cross party voting it seems crazy to me to allow the nominee to be chosen this way.
10 Chris J. Breisch Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I still think that Michigan will be re-run since Obama wasn’t on the ballot, but that Florida’s delegates will be seated.

I also think that Obama is less ‘unelectable’ than Hillary.
11 Chris J. Breisch Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Interesting post on what the delegate counts would be like if the Dems did “winner-take-all” like the Reps:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar11.html
12 too many steves Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Very interesting. If I can’t have the smoke-filled room then I’ll accept winner-take-all.
13 Bob from Ohio Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Dean is at fault because the standard DNC rules, like the RNC ones, call for a 1/2 loss of delegates penalty. Dean got the whole slate yanked instead. Major error in judgment. Impossible to let stand.

If Michigan and Florida just had reduced delegate slates, it would be a non-issue.
14 Sean P Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“Sort of like a baseball team being ahead 7-3 in the eighth inning. Still to early to leave the stadium.”

You obviously aren’t from Southern California, are you?
15 peter Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Bay Area. Leaving the stadium after a Giants game is no big deal.
16 Clint Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
My new take on all this…

Big winner: the Electoral College System.

Anyone think there will be voices calling for the Electoral College System to be scrapped in favor of a “Proportional Electors” system after this year’s election (as there have been after every presidential election I can remember)? We’ve seen the proportional system run in parallel with a winner-take-all system, and the lesson is clear.
17 Ryan Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
How is the lesson clear? The winner-take-all system produced a nominee who didn’t win more than 30% in any state until the rest of his competition had surrendered, a nominee who is generally loathed by the base of his own party. In what sense did the winner-take-all system yield an outcome that we should be all that excited about?
18 Ryan Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Uh, obviously 30% is not right. But it’s approximately right.
19 Mark Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Approximately right? Is that anything like truthiness? Wait, what was the big CBS excuse on the Bush National Guard memo? ‘Fake but accurate’, yeah, I remember now…