Michigan and Florida May Call a Mulligan
Wed, 02/06/2008 - 4:10pm
Apparently the DNC is pushing the two naughty states, Florida and Michigan, to hold caucuses. This is not what I thought the solution to the unseated delegate conundrum would be. George says it is a win-win, in that Michigan and Florida got to be somewhat influential and the party gets to say that everyone gets their delegates when they straighten up and act right. I think this shows other states that it is okay to fly in the face of central authority. We'll see if it shakes out.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
A Classic Compromise
By Patrick M McLeod
Wed, 02/06/2008 - 4:53pm
It's a compromise, albeit one of the classic kind that I bet will leave everyone unhappy.
On an organizational level, this isn't a good thing for the DNC. It establishes a precedent that state party leadership can buck the DNC's wishes when it comes to the all-important electoral calendar.
In terms of our current context, a close Super Tuesday between Clinton and Obama pretty much ordained that the fates of the Florida and Michigan delegations were going to become a bigger issue.
I think, though, if I'm Hillary Clinton, I'm not happy with this turn of events. I think she only stands to lose support in a situation where Barack Obama is now running neck and neck with her and where he had gained a good bit of momentum in the run up to Super Tuesday and where he retains momentum in the aftermath of Super Tuesday.
The punishment's done
By George Nassar
Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:58pm
Saying that it gives incentive for bucking the trend implies that Michigan and Florida got incentive out of it.
They held their primaries earlier, and they lost their delegates. Their punishment, however, wasn't that they lost their delegates.
Recast, what happened was that they held their primaries earlier for the purpose of increasing their primaries' influence. In response, the party pulled their delegates — and their primaries lost their influence. Clinton's victory in Florida was largely ignored. Michigan was ignored. In their attempt to increase their influence, the result was their losing all of it.
If they now hold a caucus — when the DNC says they can — and they then get their influence in the process back, the end result is that disobedience to the DNC means you lose, and compliance means you win. Central authority is reinforced and Florida and Michigan are represented in the convention. Win-win.
Though I agree with Patrick — Hillary can't be happy about that. I think a big part of that also has to do with the fact that they're calling for caucuses. It's interesting to observe that Obama won every one out of the Super Tuesday caucuses.
No other way
By Josh Berthume
Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:06pm
There's no way they get it out the door with giving Florida and Michigan to Clinton without screaming and teeth-gnashing. This is the only way they can do it.
Formal primary
By George Nassar
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 3:30am
Well, I'm sure there's screaming and teeth-gnashing either way. But whereas going with past results favoring Clinton seems unfair, as you mention, so does assuring an Obama victory with a format that's atypical to the state. It would seem to make more sense to me to have the states conduct a "formal" version of whatever "informal" kind of contest they held earlier in the season.
Oh, right.
By Josh Berthume
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:19am
I guess I meant having a do-over, rather than anything specifically about the format.
Push
By Patrick M McLeod
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 3:33pm
This is what I was thinking about too, George. Obama has walloped Clinton in the caucus format across our electoral map to date. Having caucuses as a compromise would seem to favor Obama as will having caucuses or primaries or a funky West Virginian convention later in the calendar.
All the solutions enfranchising Florida and Michigan Democrats are off putting for the Clinton campaign. Simply seating the delegates as-is from what were supposed to be sanctioned primaries is unfair to Obama.
Push! There are no winners here.