Friday, May 30, 2008

Resources for Tracking the Bogus Primaries (MI, FL)

With all of the furor over the FL and MI primaries and the meeting planned this weekend I thought it might be appropriate to post some "information" for folks to peruse as they follow this weekend's "news":

The beginning of the storm: In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee stating that only the four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008.

In May 2007, the Florida legislature, (a Senate composed of 26 republicans and 14 Democrats; a House composed of 77 Republicans and 43 Democrats), passed a bill that moved the date of the state's primary to January 29, 2008, setting up a confrontation with the DNC.

Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, also in violation of party rules. None of the top candidates campaigned in Florida or Michigan. The events were described in the media as beauty contests, and voter turnout in both states was relatively low when compared with record-high turnout in other states

Some analysis of the FL primary: So what does it mean that Sen. Hillary Clinton "won" the Democratic Primary in Florida? Not much, since none of the Democratic presidential candidates campaigned there and no delegates will be allocated to her. It was kind of a Potemkin village of a race, like the one in Michigan which also didn't count on the Democratic side because, like Florida, Michigan moved its primary to an earlier date against the wishes of the Democratic National Committee.

Some analysis of the MI primary: About 44 percent of Michigan Democrats voted against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) yesterday in the party's primary, with the vast majority of that group marking "uncommitted" on ballots that did not include any other major candidates.

Michigan primary results and Florida primary results

Given all of the above, there are only two "fair" resolutions, either of which is fine by me (for what that is worth).
  1. The delegates could be split 50/50 between Obama and Clinton.
  2. A re-vote could be held - but it would be expensive and it is kind of late for that.

I can think of no other resolution that fairly meets the needs of FL, MI, the Democratic part, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

10 comments:

G said...

I'm double posting this to keep the conversation going on this new thread.

From a letter to the Detroit Free Press:

"Those who ridicule the need to count the results of Michigan's 2008 primary miss the point. They underestimate the feelings of Michigan Democratic voters who are incensed because our votes were stolen from us twice: the 2000 presidential election and the 2008 primaries.

This is not a partisan issue of support for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton. It is an outrage that the silly rules artificially imposed by the Democratic National Committee should trump the honest attempt of millions of voters to express their political choice.

If this stupidity prevails, these demoralized millions may just decide to drop out of the system and refuse to vote in future elections. After all, if your vote never seems to count, why bother?

Pundits can write all kinds of hogwash from their ivory towers. The reality is the voters themselves, and we are furious."

Is it a Rep legislature in Michigan as well? Just asking. I don't know the answer, and it's late here (so I'm not going to look it up). Really, the Dems are at fault for a large part of the problem. First, they decided on a purely arbitrary rule about the primaries. Second, the candidates agreed not to campaign in those two states. And the worst was Obama actually taking his name off the ballot in MI.

You're right that the Dems can have their primary whenever they want. But if they want the state govt to pay for it, then they have to do it when the state govt says. They can feel free to organize and pay for their own special primary... but we know that isn't going to happen.

coreydbarbarian said...

sounds to me like the voters of michigan have a beef with the michigan state government, not the dnc. if the state legislature screwed it up for them, why don't they take it out on them? the rules were in place well in advance; everyone (voters, legislature, everyone) knew what they were doing. to whine and cry after the fact, i have no pity.

as for their constitutionally protected right to vote, they'll get that... in november.

csm said...

Exactly, Corey, but we keep on hearing the conservatives whine that the DNC is somehow at fault.

What few talk about, mostly because it doesn't matter with McCain securing the nomination, is that the Republicans stripped Michigan of half of their delegates, too. Shouldn't Republican voters in Michigan be honked off because their votes don't fully count?

And the Michigan legislature is split - the Senate is Republican controlled 21 Reps, 17 Dems; I do not have the numbers for the House, but the Speaker is Andy Dillon, a Democrat from the 17th District, so it must be majority Democratic.

G said...

I'm not saying it's the Dems fault. Partially, yes... along with the state govts that set the primary date. But it does seem to be rather hypocritical doesn't it?

Remember the whole issue of "hanging chads/dimpled chads" in Florida? The screams of "every vote counted?" And now they're saying that your vote won't count because your state govt ignored their arbitrarily decided rules? Could the difference be that they LOST in Florida, but now it's between two Dems?

How about the outrage at those sneaky Republican crooks trying to disenfranchise voters by requiring a photo ID (which the Supreme Court upheld as legal), but no problem disenfranchising the people of Michigan and Florida because, "well, we just want Iowa and New Hampshire to be first... no reason, just so they feel important" and their state govts ignored the DNC.

Anonymous said...

Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle again. It is all about ego for these two state DNC parties. Of course they all expected Hillary to easily win the nomination but now that she hasn't all of sudden they would like to change the rules again. What a joke.

coreydbarbarian said...

well, 50/50 it is. good doin' business wit'cha.

csm said...

The Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee agreed today to seat the full delegations from both states, but each delegate — including superdelegates — will only receive a half vote.

coreydbarbarian said...

okay, not 50/50 but 1/2 votes.
i guess that's different. a lil.

i had no idea the superdelegates were in the mix. jeez.

what a crazy system we have, eh?

csm said...

Crazy, indeed. Let's see what Mrs. Clinton does now. Wouldn't surprise me to see her stubbornly stay in all the way to the convention. But she has lost. It is over and the sooner she realizes that and moves on to support the Democratic nominee the better off her career will be in the future (not to mention the better of the Dems will be).

csm said...

Did anybody else here listen to Hillary's speech tonight (6/3)? I can understand her not wanting to withdraw immediately (to perhaps negotiate planks in the platform or the VP or some other perk), but the tenor of her speech was as ridiculous as it has been for months now. It seems like she thinks she won when she has lost. The Democratic candidate is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton needs to get on the bandwagon if she intends to remain a Democrat.