Are Democrats hell bent on losing Michigan and Florida in the 2008 Presidential Election?
(No Ratings Yet)Flipping between today’s Republican debate and other Main Stream Media, I heard something more disturbing than Tom Tancredo’s isolationist trade policy. It seems that the state of Michigan has moved it’s primary past the date of no return, violating the Democratic Party’s “four state plan”, which says that no state shall hold primary contest before: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Why does that bother me?
The DNC has already threatened to take Florida and Michigan’s right to a voting delegation (In plain English it means that neither state will have a vote in the Democratic Presidential Primary of 2008). There are three camps in this interesting debate.
- The first is the overwhelmingly partisan argument offered by the DNC it basically goes something like “our party, our rules - we establish the game you play it or don’t”. So far most of the Presidential candidates are backing this party argument, with Obama, Edwards and Richardson even removing their names from the Michigan ballot (prompting this post in the first place). What happens when other swing states decide to follow suite?
- The second camp is made up of Republicans who’ve got to be tantalized by the possibility of the Democratic Party and it’s presidential candidate spitting in the face of Florida and Michigan voters. Both states could easily go Republican if Democratic voters stay in doors. Florida went Republican in 2004 and 2000 by less than a percentage point, and Michigan went Democratic by 4% in 2000 and 3% in 2004 (decided by aprox 100,000 voters). Why/Are Republicans handling the situation better?
- The third camp, which I consider to be “partisan free politics” is where I find myself. I have a moral objection to a gerrymandered party process in which voters can have their rights to vote in the primary elections simple stripped from them. These elections take place in government owned spaces, with government owned machines via the use of taxpayer dollars - what right do the parties have to simply strip citizens of their sovereign right to vote?
Which camp do you find yourself in? Have I grossly caricatured the camps for my straw man arguments - or is there something anti-Democratic about the Democratic party’s agenda on this issue?
Here’s what the mobosphere has to say about it
An excellent story by Mark Ambinder about how the Republicans are handling their Michigan primary issues.
What KOS has to say about it on the DailyKos. The comments are split into 1 and 3.
Here’s a resource from UVA on the ills of the primary nomination process.
States in Revolt over “outdated” Presidential Primary System?
Loading …
on October 9th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Like them or not, parties are the vehicles through which we do politics. And even though there seems to be greater partisan polarization in America today than in the past, the actual party organizations have lost substantial amounts of power. They have virtually no control over who gets nominated (as it probably should be), and what used to be their most powerful weapon in the process–funding–is no longer very powerful. The Democratic and Republican National Committees are basically PR firms.
Now, I guess I view the DNC’s recent actions as an attempt to regain a semblance of the power they’ve lost. There’s a reason why the primary system is the way it is. Maybe it’s not the best possible system (in fact, I’m sure it’s not), but I don’t think that Michigan or Florida should “buck the system” either. If the DNC can possibly keep the states in line, I think they should. Maybe it isn’t the most “democratic” solution, but what else can they do?
on October 10th, 2007 at 6:54 am
First off, they are not stripping your right to vote absolutely. You can still go to that public place and vote, the democratic party just doesn’t want/care about your vote. Not the perfect situation, but it certainly is the right of the candidates to run only where they choose to run.
As far as the primary dates, the audacity of these states is outrageous. They all think their so special and that their voters have more of a right than voters in other states to choose the nominees. If the DNC does not step in and assert some control here, every state will be jockeying to move their date up in future elections, moving up the primary season even further. In my opinion, it’s too early already, hardcore campaigning starts a full year and a half before the final election. What a massive waste of time and money.
It is also lame that the same states get to go first every year, what makes Iowa and NH so special that they get first crack at the candidates? Plus, it can adversely affect policy. Take Iowa for example, every candidate has to stump for how awesome ethanol is, when in reality it is a costly and inefficient solution to our energy problem, especially when it comes from corn (Jatropha is far superior). But hey, Iowa comes first so every candidate has to pander to the corn farmer vote.
My personal recommendation is that a primary system is established that rotates the 4 or 5 states that go first every presidential election, giving everyone a fair shot eventually. I don’t like the idea of 50 primaries on one day either, the initial front runner would just win every time, leaving no room for initially lesser known candidates to gain steam. If we had this then Bill Clinton would have never been president, and I think we can all agree he is a pimp. So, keep the primary system strung out over a couple of months, but don’t let a few selfish states dominate every year.
BTW, if the democrats are trying to botch an election that they already have in the bag, they are doing a terrific job.
on October 10th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Sam, I completely agree that the Democrats and Republicans are PR firms, however, in this case they are flexing some serious muscle. One potential that could make this even more interesting is if another swing state follows suit. What if like Ohio or Pennsylvania bucks the system next? Should the Democratic party risk their 2008 bid over keeping states in line?
Although I see the need in not having a completely front-loaded system, I wonder why any state should comply with the four state primary plan (besides the four)? I agree with Jeremy that a rotating primary system would be the most fair, however, I do find it interesting that the DNC is not discussing any reform. Perhaps this will happen after the primary battle?
To me this is one more thing on the laundry list of broken parts of our democracy. Anyway there is one unofficial caucus that is being held prior to Iowa. It’s called the National Presidential Caucus and it is being held on December 7th. I’d like to help organize an even in the Arlington or DC area, so if you know of a good location, please let me know!
on October 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
In my belief, everyone including the media is looking too much into this. Does anyone really think that the Democrats are going to mistreat Michigan and Florida so that they isolate their own voters and let the GOP take the states in 08?
Certaintly not! By the convention in Denver, Florida and Michigan will have their delegates in the front row and will get TV face time to cast their primary vote in the convention. To disfranchised 2 swing states in 08 esp if Guiliani is the GOP nominee would be suicide to Democrats and I believe the DNC knows this. (Florida is always a swing states and Bush lost Michigan by less than 5% in both his elections)
Currently there is a disagreement and I believe the early primaries in both states will continue on. This is more of a slap on a wrist since it bucked what the DNC wanted. Nothing more than an empty threat in my opinion. If the states were Utah or Idaho, then it would’ve been true that they would’ve lost their voting rights. But in the end, political strategy will win over any type of punishment for bucking the trend in this election cycle.
But that is not to say that this will backfire. That certaintly can happen. But I believe that after Feb. 5, both the nominee and the DNC will send their apologies and bring back both states to the fold and will act as if nothing happened.
on October 11th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Does anyone really think that Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida would really change their vote solely as a result of their state primary being silenced? Ignoring these delegations, regardless of when they hold their primaries, isn’t going to have any impact on who the eventual Democratic nominee will be (hint: she lacks external genitalia,) and even if it had an affect on the personage it will have no affect on the platform… my prediction would be that the states fold, but I won’t be too surprised if they actually butt heads and thump chests a bit…
Ultimately this is not going to cause many Democratic primary voters to jump ship and vote Republican (a Giuliani nomination might be able to get some pull in these particular states, or this could end up increasing the draw of a strong third party push, but I doubt either of those is likely to happen this time around.) Michigan and Florida may have both been somewhat close in the last two elections, but their main Democratic constituencies have long, deep ties within the Democratic party that aren’t going to be strained by some procedural pissing-contest like this.
I’d also have to disagree with Sam’s assertion that parties have little say in their nominations. Both parties erect barriers to entry, deciding whose names are included in what polls, who gets to appear at what events, and in the earlier stages of a political career they choose whose campaign gets funded and whose doesn’t… Have you ever heard of John Cox or Ray McKinney? What about Dal LaMagna? No? Well that’s just how the parties wanted it… You’re right when you say that the RNC, the DNC (as well as the NRCC and the DCCC) are nothing more than PR forms, but you are nieve if you don’t accept that politics today is dominated by this sort of PR.
on October 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Man, I wish I had more time to research and discuss these issues. But here are a few short comments.
Such is federalism. Messy, quixotic, undemocratic and democratic all at once.
A major question here is who do you want to be more powerful? State parties or the national party? A strong national party may inhibit political representation of regional differences. But strong state parties can also inhibit certain realizations of democracy, rights and the will of the majority (the solid south Democratic party and Civil Rights, anyone?; urban machine politics, the rancher/timber/miner veto in the West, the anti-Cuban minority in Florida). It’s kind of a pick your poison situation.
What are you really voting for on primary election day, anyway? We should do some research into state election laws to have a well-informed debate here. In MO we had an open primary. On the day of the election you go and ask for one of the party ballots. Not all parties participate. So the Green and Constitution party candidates I had the chance to vote for in the general election were elected, not in a primary, but solely at the parties’ nominating convention or in some other manner chosen by the party (perhaps drawn out of a hat, I don’t know). Those nominating conventions are closed-door affairs = must be part of the party, however that is defined by the party.
For Democrats, even when you voted in a primary you were actually only voting for delegates to nominating conventions. First at the ward level (but only for those counties with a large enough Democratic contingent to make it worth the party’s time/money = I believe it was only 10 or so of the approximately 114 counties in MO), then at the county nominating caucus, then at the state-level. Delegates were only “pledged” not required to choose between candidates. It’s kind of screwed up, but the point is to make it more democratic. You could change your mind, you could advocate and seek to change people’s opionions, and you could horse-trade.
Other states have closed primaries. In DC I am not allowed to vote in the primary unless when I register to vote I declare myself a member of the GOP, Dem Party or the Green/States-Right party. That sucks, but am I disenfranchised? I choose to not be a part of a party. So even if I am “disenfranchised” I choose to be such by not exercising my right of association and joining a party and by choosing to live in DC. (The answer is everyone in DC is disenfranchised. We are the last colony in the US beholden to the whims of the majority; taxed like a state, subject to the draft like a state, treated like a state in every manner except in Congressional representation…but I digress).
Delegates to national conventions also have to vote. Look at history and you’ll see that the conventions used to be where nominees were actually chosen. Now the nominating conventions are just expensive commercials and base-rallying events. It’s not always been that way.
As far as taxpayer money being used. Isn’t South Carolina a state where the parties are responsible for the funding of the primary, not the taxpayer?
Finally, do you really think it makes any difference to the 2008 election if the Democratic Party sanctions FL and MI? I don’t. So nine to ten months after the primary when people go to vote, the most loyal members of the Democratic Party (people voting in primaries tend to be the most partisan) are going to vote for a Republican? I guess all those old Jewish ladies in Florida did vote for Pat Buchanan in 2000, so my assumption may be wrong.
This inner-party tension will not affect the general election. Elected leaders in DC will fight amongst themselves and state leaders will fight with the national leaders. But that is nothing new.
on October 11th, 2007 at 10:48 am
A few points to add, since I seem to be on my own on this one. Avoiding the questions of how delegates vote, or questions of federalism. Florida is a closed primary whereas in Michigan has an open primary.
In an open primary where you have the choice between voting for a Democrat and not having you vote counted versus voting for a Republican and having your vote counted. My assumption is that if nothing else this will offer incentive for the independents to vote Republican (roughly a third of all voters). This gives voters more of an incentive to learn about the Republican field. It just so happens that Romney is leading the pack with about 39% (not surprising because he is “from” there). As the 5th state to vote in the primary contest a landslide win by Romney, may keep him in the game, and if he is in the game, Michigan is certainly on the table for the Republican party.
on October 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
After reading the papers today I learned that Hillary was actually named the Democratic nominee on November 2, 2004, moments after John Kerry lost to Dubya. So I’ll use that as a backdrop to my response to the last comment by CitizenSmith.
Perhaps your analysis is correct. Apparently the person who wins Iowa wins the November election (again according to the papers and “person” equates with “Democrat”). People are like lemmings; they want to vote for a winner, they take their cue from the national media (Dean Scream) and since four states vote before MI, the Democratic nomination may be finished. But if the Democratic race is not settled, that could make for some tough decisions for a number of Michiganers.
I don’t think Romney has the staying power. His being on the ticket, if it happened, would probably have a dampening effect on conservative turnout. Right now the war in Iraq, profligate spending by the GOP through the Bush Administration, a federal government that is larger than when Bush arrived (and grown faster under) all lead to a potentially depressing day for the GOP base.
To inform the debate about the degree of power for national political parties, I suggest you check out the American Political Science Association’s Perspectives on Politics, Volume 5, Number 3, September 2007, pg 461-488 “George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and the ‘New’ American Party System”, by Sidney M Milkis and Jesse H Rhodes. (It’s subscription based so a hyperlink is useless…go to your library?)