I had these thoughts on the last thread, sorry for the overlap.
Mike, you make me sad. Why have you commented only once in the last week?? I need more J-Mike.
The big questions in the presidential race right now are 1) What is going to happen to all those votes in Florida and Michigan, and 2) Which party gains an advantage from a protracted Democratic race?
1) Howard Dean is in a hard place no matter how intelligent and politico-savvy he may be. (I might interject here that there is an interesting video on YouTube that speaks to both of these qualities of HD...) There is a real problem with states moving their primaries up and up. If it goes on unchecked, you will have marginally-most-greedy state's contest landing the day after inauguration. I don't want it, you don't want it. The right thing to do was to draw a line in the sand, as the DNC did. But then comes the sticky issue of enforcement. If you allow those FL and MI votes to count, it's wide open for all the states to reposition their contests come 2011. (And yes, they will start in three years if this happens; we are already right up against the "same-year" wall with 3 Jan!) I don't want US citizens to be disenfranchised any more than the next guy, but I don't believe you can allow the votes from the premature contests and avoid a future primary season that is a year or more in front of the generals. As for a redo, it seems that since Hillary and Obama are doing so well at fundraising, and the DNC, too, that they could afford to throw those states a financial bone. However, this results similarly in encouraging their non-compliance. If it does happen, I don't think the states should have to pay for it. First, because it was the state legislatures, not a popular referendum, that moved the primaries too far up. Second, there are lots of Republicans and independents who would have to foot their portion of the bill in next year's taxes. And all to help Democrats avoid a divisive summer? No thank you.
2. I see that many people believe the too-close-to-call Democratic contest is good for whoever ends up going against McCain in November. However, let's think about some of these arguments.
Since Romney dropped out, the media haven't spent much time on McCain because there's no story to tell. It is true that the Democrats have gotten more press, BUT the media don't much want McCain to win anyway, so more McCain on camera right now wouldn't actually help him. At the same time, if you think that increased airtime will help the eventual Democratic nominee, you assume that they both need more name recognition, or that the more America sees of them, the better. In my opinion, neither one of these is true. In fact, I think the more America sees of Hillary in particular, the less likely they will be to vote for her. Maybe a different story for Obama, but maybe not. Also, the longer this goes on, and if one or the other starts to slip a bit, America will see something universally repugnant: a candidate on his or her way out who says truly despicable (and possibly true) things about his or her opponent. In addition to these, I think there are some other things to consider.
First, consider that the nominees of both parties will need to move away from their base and toward the center as the general draws nearer. McCain, who is known to be at odds with the Republican base on not a few issues, is now past the point where he has to make campaign promises to placate them. Obama and Hillary, however, are in a fight for their very political lives, and as the contest drags on will have to say things that their base wants them to hear. In doing so, I think they will find it harder to move to the center once the catfight is over; they will have pigeonholed themselves into positions that the center do not like! This should be a serious concern to Democrats if they are concerned about electability.
Second, so many resources are being put to use in Ohio and Texas and now Pennsylvania that address the opposing Democrat and leave McCain alone. Sure the Democrats are outfundraising McCain, but to what end if they spend it all fighting each other? There is a serious waste here, and one that draws money away from the national campaign.
Third, and along those same lines, the Democrats have at minimum 6 weeks more (until Pennsylvania) before they could possibly see a single candidate. Say what you will about continuing the debate and giving Americans a choice, but there is also a tremendous amount of effort necessary to take over a party committee and gear up a national campaign. McCain has ample time to do so, and he will be ready for whomever is chosen as the Democratic nominee. You think the next President has to be ready on day one in the Oval Office? He or she better be ready for day one of the national campaign! The McCain camp and all the RNC good-ole-boys are strategerizing their socks off right now, with option A for a Clinton win and option B for an Obama win. Unfortunately for the Democratic hopefuls, they have a very limited capacity to work on McCain as long as their strategies are focused on beating each other.
Fourth, and finally, with each passing day the specter of a divided Democratic convention becomes more and more imaginable. I would like to see it, in fact I wanted to see it for both parties. I think it would be interesting to watch. But I also think it would be bad for the eventual nominee's chances in the fall. Divided convention would bode great danger of a party schism. With Nader already nipping at the left's heels, the last thing Obama or Hillary wants is a divided convention.
I don't believe, from a Democratic perspective, that the "benefits" of staying on TV are worth the gift of time to McCain's people.
Well, thoughts? Does any of what I've said make sense? I'd like to hear from y'all.
FL, MI, and Divided Convention
Posted by KWS on 3/09/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
whoops, "1)" does not match "2." Formatting error #1,191!
Really good points. I don't particularly care what the Democrats end up doing in their primary, but I don't think the general taxpayers should foot the bill for a revote in MI and FL.
What do you think about winner-take-all states? Theoretically, I like the way the Democrats do it where each candidate can pick up delegates in each state because it seems more "fair" and representative of the people. But, watching this election cycle causes me to see some of the wisdom in winner-take-all states. I hated it when Romney was still in the race and McCain got ahead due to winner-take-all states because I felt that the states doing it were larger and more liberal and naturally gave McCain an advantage. But, I can also see the wisdom in wrapping up a primary instead of dragging it all the way to the convention.
I think winner takes all states suck, but it is totally up to that particular state - (Election reforms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Sorry, that was a bit many exclamation points. Anyways, Kevin - For me, it's frightening. It's also amazing, and if the direction that your post is going is, indeed, what happens, I'm going to be totally disheartened. I mean, we had a chance as a country to make a real change - Romney, Obama, Hillary, or even (grrrr) the good Reverend Huckabees would have been "a change" but instead of change, we want to just re-elect GW Bush - that is John McCain. We complain about the man for 5 years, re-elect him, and then it seems we're putting "him" right back into office with Mccain. I hope that this split over Hillary and Obama doesn't split the party, because we DO need change.
I actually think that, no matter what happens with the primary and the nomination, the Democratic party will largely stay together and vote for their candidate - who I still think can pulverize ol' Johnny Mac. I think It is just putting both candidates in the public eye for longer and giving more people access and understanding of them. Of course I'm an idealist and this is probably my idealized version of what is going on.
One of the problems with states choosing whether or not to be winner-take-all states, is that those who do it increase their power and say of what the outcome is. I don't like that imbalance of influence. Perhaps a good compromise is the way CA does it with winner-take-all by congressional districts?
Rick, I know I said this before in another post, but in my opinion, your comment is the Democrats' best attack on McCain. There are a LOT of people feeling that way (including me), so it touches a nerve. But, I'll still hold my nose and vote for McCain because, in this case, I don't want a Democrat in office (goes back to that whole platform thing).
Totally agree that the biggest drawback for Democrats is being undecided between hillary and obama and splitting the vote...this is what the Republicans did in 1996; they couldn't agree who should run against Bill Clinton. End result=split vote, no one strong candidate to unify the party with a chance of winning against Clinton.
The national Democratic Party needs to put its foot down and not allow Michigan and Florida to seat delegates at the convention - Kevin is absolutely correct that allowing the delegates would be a tacit invitation for future encroaching by other states.
As for who should pay for it ... that's a tough one, but I think the states should have to. Remember, it wasn't just Democrats in the state legislatures that moved the primaries up - the Republicans in those legislatures are just as culpable. Kevin, I don't buy your argument that they shouldn't be on the hook because it wasn't a popular referendum - that's how a representative democracy works. By that argument, I shouldn't have to stop at red lights because I didn't vote on it. I vote for state representatives, and they, well, represent me by casting binding votes in the state legislature. Them's the rules. :)
If Michigan and Florida want delegates at the convention, they better have to pay for their own mistakes and fund a re-do primary. Otherwise I will be very upset - the Democratic Party will appear as spineless as they have been with respect to stopping the war, and Clinton will gain an unfair advantage because she left her name on a meaningless ballot.
Regardless of what happens over the next several weeks, I believe the Democratic nominee will prevail in November. Most Democrats, myself included, like both candidates a lot, and will vote for whomever comes out on top in the primary. Also, if Hillary wins, I would be shocked if Obama is not her running mate. (I would be similarly shocked if John Edwards is not Obama's running mate if he wins, though I'd prefer the darkhorse - Janet Napolitano.) Party division is not a concern of mine - I think it's something Fox News invented to make John McCain feel better. :)
By the way, we need a real solution for the broken primary system as a whole. I know Iowa and New Hampshire would not be pleased about giving up their time in the national spotlight, but the current system is tremendously unfair.
I think it's a decent idea to have a true national primary, but perhaps an even better solution would be to have several regional primaries where groups of states would vote simultaneously, rotating dates every four years. For instance, the Northwest would vote the first week in April, the Southwest the next week, the Midwest the next week... The next election cycle, the order would be changed so everyone gets a fair shot.
The one thing that is somewhat nice about the current system is that underdogs have at least a decent chance due to suprises and momentum (see: Obama and Huckabee this time, Bill Clinton in 1992). The regional primary would still allow for that, while a true national primary would not.
What do y'all think?
I have been thinking about this all afternoon. I think I have decided that my opinion is that the states should pay for it, and my thinking goes like this: the states moved up their primaries as a way to make their states relevant in the contest. The DNC and RNC each dished out its "appropriate" punishment. So now, these states are in a situation where they are more than just relevant - they are critical for the Democratic primary. They got what they want. But, seeing as this was their own choice, they should have to pay for it, Republicans and all (BBD convinced me). That way, next time around, when the states consider whether or not to break the rules, they can weigh the consequence of having to pay for a revote in making their decision. I would think that a few of those wasteful revotes, and the taxpayers would revolt (I hope so - I would revolt if I had to pay for multiple revotes - what a waste of money!)
Let me restate, though, that I don't really care what the Democrats decide to do. Wow - something I actually DON'T have an opinion on!
I am not in favor of a national primary at this point. It would favor two types of candidates: the wealthy and the well-known. State primaries give candidates a chance to campaign on a small level and get their message out there. It worked brilliantly for Huckabee. Perhaps in a few more years as the Internet and people's use of it evolves even more, it would be more practical to hold a national primary.
I do like your regional idea BBD. I think that is practical and would still give the candidates a chance to campaign on the ground.
Dave, you are true! Representative democracy. I might argue that being subject to laws enacted by our reps is different from compliance issues with political parties. However, it's not a particularly strong argument, so I will forbear.
Moving the primary was enacted by a law - they knew the consequences of enacting such a law before they did it, and they did it anyway. :)
Sorry, K-Dub, I've been mega-busy at work lately, corporate tax returns due March 15 and whatnot. Then by the time I get around to checking things out here, there's 50 lengthy, well-thought-out comments that I haven't the time to READ, let alone intelligently respond to. I'll be more free after this week.
I see your points in "2.", but I think I disagree. More McCain on camera would help him, even if there's a media bias against him, because your average voter isn't actually carefully reading articles, (s)he's seeing pictures of faces and hearing sound bites. Barack Obama ABSOLUTELY still needs more name recognition, and I think seeing more of Clinton makes people MORE likely to vote for her, since she's really not as bad as many people ignorantly project her to be. Great point on the slip-ups, though. I get the feeling they're circling each other like hawks, waiting for the other to say something stupid so they can dive in, talons a-blazin'.
Stephanie, winner-take-all states are about as silly as the electoral college - they disenfranchise voters and discourage non-mainstream candidates and new ideas. Al Gore got screwed that way, and so did Mitt Romney, as you point out.
Nice regional primary idea, Dave, I'd get behind that. It would probably nix this whole "XXX Candidate's a Lock after Winning 3 States" thing, too, since the sections of the country would likely trend differently.
Mike - "your average voter isn't actually carefully reading articles, (s)he's seeing pictures of faces and hearing sound bites" doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in our average voter. :(
Post a Comment