The primary situation is starting to get crazy on the Democratic side. Many states have moved their primaries up to earlier and earlier dates to try and have a bigger voice in picking the parties nominee. A couple of states have even been bold enough to openly defy party rules and schedule very early primaries.
According to Democratic party rules, the Iowa caucuses will be on January 3rd, the New Hampshire primary will be on January 8th, the Nevada caucuses will be on January 19th, and the South Carolina primary will be on January 26th. No other state is allowed to have a caucus or primary before February 5th.
But some states have decided that rules are for other people. Florida set its primary for January 29th, and when they wouldn't reconsider their decision the National Democratic Party stripped Florida of all its delegates. Michigan recently set its primary on January 15th. Yesterday, the Democrats also stripped Michigan of all its delegates.
Both of these states are playing a high stakes game of "chicken" with the national party. They believe their delegations will be seated in spite of the party rules. They think the leading nominee will put pressure on the party to seat them. They might be right.
After all, we are talking about the fourth and the eighth largest states. It might be hard for the leading nominee to ignore states with that many votes. He/she might be afraid to anger the voters in those states by refusing to seat their delegations.
Seating these delegations might present fairness problems though. Why should they be seated after all the other states obeyed the rules? Wouldn't that be unfair to the states that followed party rules?
It would also be unfair to some of the candidates. Four major candidates (Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Biden) have removed their names from the Michigan ballot in an effort to convince the state to follow the rules. Would it now be fair to these candidates to seat the Michigan delegation?
This has really developed into a mess! Democrats really don't want to alienate voters in Florida and Michigan, but seating their delegations could set a really bad precedent. If these banned delegations are seated, why should any state bother to follow any party rules in the future?
The Republicans are having the same kind of problems, but I think they may have handled it a little better. Instead of stripping a state of all their delegates, they have stripped them of half their delegates. The state is still punished severely for violating the rules, and since they do have half their delegates seated, they have less chance of winning an appeal to the credentials committee.
I don't know what will happen. I hate to see a state completely banned from the convention, but the party must be able to enforce its rules. Maybe the Democrats should consider the solution the Republicans have chosen. It could be a workable compromise.
yes they should be stripped AND body searched!
ReplyDeleteFollow the fuckin rules why dont ya?
Geez. It aint that fuckin hard!
Talk about fair? Why should Iowa and NH set the tone every election day? They certainly don't represent Michigans interests. Our state's been going to hell with the nominees they decide should lead this country and I for one am sick of business as usual. So screw the party rules. If Obama and others wish to pull out of primary that'll be their problem this summer. Protest is the most viable means to change. Michigan delegates WILL count.
ReplyDeleteHey Mike:
ReplyDeleteLet me see. In the 2000 presidential primary, NH Republicans picked John McCain (as Michigan did), but much of the rest of country seemed to think George W. Bush was the better person to get the nod in not only the primaries, but also the general election. NH Democrats picked Al Gore in 2000 (who I hear actually WON the election). Hmm. From where I sit, either of them would have been a better choice, since Bush is probably the worst president in history. But, for some reason, some people in this country seem to think NH citizens are not fit to pick a president. God forbid that a state that ranks among the highest in the nation for SAT scores, per capita computer ownership, standard of living, and many other such "firsts", also be the first to have a primary. So I guess you're saying it would better represent the "interests" of the country to let Michigan pick? A state that has Detroit automakers with a stranglehold over DC politicians every time they try to increase energy efficiency standards, or lessen our dependency on petroleum? I don't think so. [By the way, I for one am sick to death of mid-west states like yours sending your damned air pollution to New England]. Either we all pull together, or we will all sink. Your kind of thinking is exactly what George Bush and company have promoted these last eight years - "I don't have to follow the rules".
Pretty typical response from one of those in the first states. It seems those in the early primary states always defend their "rights" while everyone else wants equal rights.
ReplyDeletelc, the only thing in your post that I agree with is the following "Either we all pull together, or we will all sink." Arguing that you should go first is not pulling together... it's you putting yourself first and expecting the rest of us to like it. If you truly believed we should all pull together than you'd support NH stepping aside and letting the other states having a turn or at the very least to have a national primary day.
Though you claim other states simply wanting their turn to be exactly like the logic of the Bush administration, I'd argue the opposite is true. This attitude of only following your own wants and desires and ignoring the opinions and thoughts of others is the same flawed logic that has made the Bush administration such a terrible one. This non-compromising attitude that gives you the mistaken belief that you should set the rules and eliminate anyone else who tries to speak out is exactly the same as what Bush and his cronies have been operating on this entire time. Instead of acknowledging a failed policy, you stick to something that's obviously not working... just as Bush has done with Iraq. I could go on and on.
The simple truth is that like it or not, NH should not represent the entire country. Our country should be ruled as a democracy... not by a bunch of elitists who deliberately try to keep the rest of the country down... wait a minute, who does that sound like again? Bush again. You have a privilege the rest of the country would love to have and you've mistaken it as your right.
pulling votes away from states shows us just how powerful these "parties" have become. every vote in every state should count, not those the parties decide. please give the vote back to the people, and eliminate all of this nonsence
ReplyDeleteDear Jimmy Stewart;
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the point of my message entirely, and you seem to assume that I won't agree with anything YOU said, which is entirely false.
Frankly I don't really care if NH has the first primary. In fact, I agree, and have said many times, that we should just eliminate the conventions and the electoral college completely (if we had, then Al Gore would be President, which would suit me just fine). They are archaic institutions made irrelevant by modern voting techniques. However, someone does have to go first in the current situation, and right now that happens to be NH or Iowa (or Wyoming, whose Republican caucus really WAS first, by the way - oh yeah, how much does WY "represent" the rest of the country?!). And, I don't think that Michigan disregarding party rules is necessarily the way to go about changing the system. How is that "pulling together" for change, and it is EXACTLY the type of callous disregard for the rules, law, or US Constitution typical of the Bush White House. "Mike" won't garner support for his cause from people in NH by denigrating them and making false assumptions about them. Furthermore, I resent the idea that somehow people in NH are not representative of the citizens in this country, which is what "Mike" is implying, and others have said. Is it because we're too "white" in NH, as some talking heads suggest? That smacks of racism or bigotry to think that white people in my state (or any state) can't understand the struggles of a minority group, or the poor, or anyone else for that matter. Give me a break! Furthermore, my other point was that NH didn't vote any differently than Michigan did in the 2000 primary, so how could "Mike" say that NH voters didn't/don't represent Michigan's interests? In fact, I would argue (as I did above) that the auto industry lobby, which Michigan is home to, has been detrimental to this entire country's economy and the environment, with its handouts of corporate welfare from taxpayers' dollars and resistance to tougher environmental standards.
By the way, NH still votes the old fashioned "democratic" way in many of its municipalities - during the annual town meeting. We also have one of the largest legislative bodies in the world after the US Congress, and the British Parliament, populated by citizen legislators who receive only nominal stipends for serving their state. And, most of our cities and towns use optical scanning voting machines, which most experts agree is the BEST method for counting large numbers of votes. Don't talk to me about democracy. We have the closest thing to true representation in NH than anywhere else in this country. There are no hanging chads or voting machines with no paper trail here.
Finally, you seem to be putting words in my mouth and I resent that. I am not saying that only NH's wants and needs count, although you're absolutely right that THAT sentiment is another flaw of this horrible Bush Administration. If you really READ my message, you might see that (but I guess subtlety or sarcasm aren't things you’re very good with). Don't bother answering. I am dropping this blog off my list.
From Mike, Michigan Democrat-
ReplyDeleteIt pains me to say it, but the RNC really outsmarted the DNC on this one. The Republicans weren't as heavy handed, only taking half of the states' delegates and allowing the GOP canidates to campaign in two crucial battleground states.
As a result, Republicans are far more involved, organized and motivated for the general election in Michigan and Florida than they otherwise would have been, while many Democrats in those states are disgusted and feeling marginalized.
The Democratic delegations almost certainly will be seated, particularly if there is a clear frontrunner by convention time. The primaries were rendered largely meaningless. Any notion to exclude the delgates would be counter productive and vindictive, at best.
DNC, which would you rather have - the presidency in 2008 or a leg up in keeping order in the 2012 nomination process? The RNC has already outsmarted us - let's not compound the error.
Mike, Michigan Democrat